UCSChit
attacks on UC/academic
n africa expert
ucsc
https://kpfa.org/episode/voices-of-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-april-5-2019/
canary
ucsc search
ORGANIZATIONS
Sami Abed
Professional
BDS, CJP (SJP), IFPB, PIAC, RCNV,
Zain Ahmed
SJSU
Student
SJP, BDS,
Summer Al-Saleh
Student
BDS, MSA, SJP,
Wessam Awadalla
UCSC
Student
CJP (SJP), BDS,
Michelle Belmessieri
SJSU
Student
SJP, BDS,
Katherine Berjikian
UCSC
Student
BDS, CJP (SJP),
Boian-Cristoph Boianov
Student
CJP (SJP), BDS, ISM,
Camellia Boutros
UCSC
Student
CJP (SJP), BDS, ,
Edmund Burke
Professor
BDS,
Gina Dent
Professor
BDS, JVP,
Elaine Ejigu
UCSC
Professional
CJP (SJP),
Abid El-Miaari
SJSU
Student
SJP, BDS, CAIR,
Laila Issa
Student
BDS, PYM, SJP,
Gabi Kirk
Student
INN, JVP, Open Hillel, SJP,
Rosa Lubin-Molina
UCSC
Student
BDS, CJP (SJP), FOSNA,
Melissa Otero
UCSC
Student
CJP (SJP), BDS, FOSNA,
Rebecca Pierce
Professional
BDS, CJP (SJP), IJAN, INN, JVP,
Lisa Rofel
UC Santa Cruz
Professor
BDS,
Kali Rubaii
UC Santa Cruz
Student
BDS,
Ahmed Sedda
Student
SJP,
Nadin Sofia
UCSC
Student
CJP (SJP), BDS,
Omar Zahzah
UCLA
Unknown
BDS, PYM, SJP,
Sharif Zakout
UCSC, SFSU
Student
JP (SJP), GUPS, AROC, PYM, BDS,
~ NAS
https://senate.ucsc.edu/committees/caf-committee-on-academic-freedom/index.html
==
book, We Will Not be Silenced, teach us about activism and academia
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/palestine-academic-repression/
WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED: The Academic Repression of Israel’s Critics
Edited by William I. Robinson and Maryam S. Griffin
Forward by Cynthia McKinney and Preface by Richard Falk
280 pp. AK Press, 2017. $19.95.
There are many ways to try to silence people whose ideas you don’t like. You can bully, blackmail, violate, isolate, punish, and smear them until they shut up, back down, and/or lose the platform upon which they were speaking.
It’s not just autocratic despots or crooked attorneys who wield such strategies with tyrannical efficacy. The forces of the pro-Israel lobby have long carried out systematic campaigns of vilification and repression with a pugnacious energy that rivals even the mob’s. Anyone in the public eye who dares to level a critique of the State of Israel could find themselves targeted. And if you are a prominent and vocal Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) activist:
This climate of censorship is especially hard felt on college and university campuses where a historic upsurge in successful pro-Palestine activism has led to a corollary increase in McCarthyist pressure by the dozens of Zionist organizations who have formed into a network called the Israel on Campus Coalition. Characterized by their shameless meddling in internal university proceedings, well-organized groups like the AMCHA Initiative, Stand With Us, Campus Watch, Canary Mission, and ADL are the most visible tip of a slander-industrial complex whose mission is to purge professors and students who challenge their own narrative.
When fear of reprisal has become the norm, speaking out becomes an act of courage and resistance. This is the premise of “We Will Not Be Silenced,” AK Press’s excellent new collection of first-hand testimonial accounts penned by pro-Palestinian scholars who have been targeted on U.S. campuses. With more than a dozen essays by some of the luminaries in the movement such as Richard Falk, Saree Makdisi, Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, Nadia Abu El-Haj, Steven Salaita, Joseph Massad, members of the Irvine 11, and many others—”We Will Not Be Silenced” serves as an instructive compendium of the pro-Israel lobby’s bag of underhanded tricks and an invaluable playbook for how to preempt and defeat them.
Across the breadth of these infuriating yet illuminating essays, a consistent pattern of tactics emerges. Most of these tactics are predicated on the lobby’s willingness to breach basic standards of academic freedom and common decency to achieve their aims.
In their helpful opening essay, David Theo Goldberg and Saree Makdisi discuss the alarming implications of the Hasbara Handbook that is distributed by organizations like StandWithUs to help train pro-Israel campus activists to be effective propagandists. The handbook explicitly encourages its acolytes to avoid legitimate argument and debate with pro-Palestinian activists in favor of deceitful strategies like point scoring, emotional manipulation, and name calling—to create negative connotations “without allowing a real examination of that person or idea.”
The direct and damaging results of these methods are on full display in the pages of “We Will Not Be Silenced” where victim after victim narrates the life-altering consequences they have faced for their criticism of Israel.
William Robinson, one of the co-editors of the book, was brought up on spurious charges at UCSB for circulating a photo-essay that juxtaposed images from Operation Cast Lead in Gaza with the images of the Warsaw ghetto, accompanied by a text condemning Israel’s human rights record. After a strenuous fight, Robinson was cleared of all charges, but at a steep cost to his research and reputation.
David Delgado Shorter, whose only “crime” was to offer his students the optionof researching the BDS movement as a case study in his “Tribal Worldviews” course, survived a demoralizing ordeal at UCLA at the hands of AMCHA that included death threats and false accusations of anti-Semitism that damaged his professional and personal life.
David Klein, a math professor at Cal State, Northridge and prominent BDS activist, was subjected to a similar coordinated campaign of censorship that stretched out for years and may not even be over yet. Unlike most of the scholars in this collection, Klein was fortunate that Harry Hellenbrand, the president of CSUN at the time, was an outspoken supporter of Klein’s academic freedom.
Most of these political witch hunts have been instigated and/or vigorously pursued by outside lobbyists, powerful politicians, or alumni donors. While these forces hold no contractual or professional affiliation with the universities, they often interfere with impunity in internal governance procedures. In some cases they help pro-Israel students file official complaints against pro-Palestinian faculty members, but often dispense with even that “nicety.”
What is especially disturbing is the alacrity with which many upper administrators quickly cave and often collude with pressure groups who have no interest in research and knowledge production, but rather have a vested interest in censorship and knowledge suppression.
The Israel on Campus Coalition has shown few scruples about smearing its opponents as supporters of terror, self-hating Jews, or anti-Semites. Groups like AMCHA, Hillel, StandWithUs have worked with political allies around the clock to cement the erroneous notion that opposition to Zionism is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and that a hatred of Israel’s policies of racism, ethnic cleansing and dispossession is the same as hatred of Jews qua Jews.
Given the horrific history of anti-Semitism, and the deplorable reality of its continued existence, even among some who identify as “supporters” of Palestinian rights, the grave charge of anti-Semitism is not to be taken lightly. As several of the essayists in this book point out, this highly fraught context gives the lobbying groups the perfect straw-man weapon to combat its opponents; and they wield it with a vengeance, in reckless disregard of the lives and livelihoods ruined in the process, and in reckless disregard of the important task of defanging the real anti-Semites.
The question becomes why—why are these extra-academic interests given such wide berth to operate on U.S. campuses? The answer, in part, has to do with the rise of the neoliberal university and the decline of faculty protections across the board. Kristofer J. Petersen-Overton, a doctoral candidate at the CUNY Graduate Center, situates his own persecution within the broader context in higher education—the increasing reliance on vulnerable adjunct labor, the steady elimination of tenure, and a prevalent “boardroom mentality” where administrators have become chiefly concerned with protecting “carefully cultivated brands.”
Lisa Rofel and Steven Salaita both draw pointed and sustained attention to the decline of the public university and its traditional commitment to the common good. In an era of “neoliberal graft,” where students are viewed as consumers, adjunct labor is exploited, and administrators command exorbitant salaries, we see a sharp increase in the profit-motives of upper management. In such a climate, wealthy donors, lobby groups, and board members are able to sway and even dictate hiring decisions and curriculum.
Though the death knell of academic freedom is tolling, all is not lost. The apt title of this book “We Will Not Be Silenced” indicates that the tables are beginning to turn. Despite cause for anger and outrage, these stories are leavened with encouraging lessons. In nearly every case, some small victory has been snatched from the jaws of defeat. With the unwavering support from scores national and international progressive and civil rights organizations, most of these scholars were eventually vindicated.
Despite appearances, the pro-Israel lobby is not winning these campus skirmishes. All of us who work for social justice should take heart and fight smart. We should embolden ourselves to speak out and assert our rights. We should donate and build stronger alliances with the organizations like the AAUP, the National Lawyers Guild, the ACLU, FIRE, Palestine Legal, and many others that have been steadfast in support of civil rights. We should denounce anti-Semitism where we find it, and strenuously educate on the immense difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
Those of us working in academia should purchase the book, read it, and lend it our colleagues and administrators so they too can strengthen their resolve to defend our campuses from these unseemly and costly attacks. Rather than squelching discourse and avoiding “controversy,” campus leaders—whether students, faculty, staff, or administrators—should help cultivate an atmosphere of intellectual debate based on time-tested principles of academic freedom.
Professors and students have a right to engage in research and to disseminate that research, even it challenges long-cherished dogma. Colleges and universities are sites traditionally dedicated to the dialogical process of learning where ideas are put forth, tested, and debated, then accepted or rejected on the merit of the arguments. The misuse of money and power to warp this process is not just damaging to the brave individuals who refuse to be silent, but to the entire project of participatory democracy.
==
In the latest analysis of the world’s top universities published by Times Higher Education (THE), UC Santa Cruz ranked third in research influence as measured by the number of times its faculty’s published work is cited by scholars around the world.
Published as part of the THE World University Rankings 2018, the analysis measured overall research influence based on the average number of citations per paper, using a database of almost 62 million citations to more than 12.4 million research publications published over five years, from 2012 to 2016.
With a citation score of 99.9, UC Santa Cruz is tied for third place with Stanford University. St. George’s University of London and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were tied for first. UC Berkeley ranked just behind UCSC and Stanford with a citation score of 99.8.
The 2018 rankings list the top 1,000 universities in the world, comparing them in five areas: teaching (the learning environment); research (volume, income, and reputation); citations (research influence); international outlook (staff, students, and research); and industry income (knowledge transfer).
The research influence indicator looks at the role of universities in spreading new knowledge and ideas. As explained on the website for the World University Rankings, "The citations help to show us how much each university is contributing to the sum of human knowledge: they tell us whose research has stood out, has been picked up and built on by other scholars and, most importantly, has been shared around the global scholarly community to expand the boundaries of our understanding, irrespective of discipline."
UCSC’s overall ranking in the THE World University Rankings 2018 was 162 out of 1,000 institutions worldwide. In the United States, UC Santa Cruz ranked 55 out of 154 institutions.
==
==
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Noindoctrinationorg_UC_courses.pdf
University of California, Davis Aug. 29, 2004 http://www.ucdavis.edu CA Course: GEO 10: The World's Regions Course Catalog Description: The major geographic regions of the world; their origins, physical environments, cultures and economies; their interactions and global roles. Designed for non-majors. Professor: Dennis Dingemans Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: The professor used the term "American Empire" to describe our country. He also insulted Rush Limbaugh a couple times by using Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" to claim that Rush Limbaugh was stupid. The next day, he said he took back his remark about Rush Limbaugh being stupid and started making fun of his pain pill addiction. He made fun of Bush and made some inappropriate comments on the War in Iraq. He stated the reason for the financial crisis in Argentina was because taxes weren't high enough over there. He also stated that former California Governor Gray Davis was a good governor and that Arnold was going to be a terrible governor for California because he was an actor and had no experience in politics. One day in class when we were talking about Africa, he made a very inappropriate comment comparing Rush Limbaugh and talk radio to the genocide in Rwanda, that Rush Limbaugh was advocating the slaughtering of liberals the way that the Hutus were killing the majority Tutsis. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: There were no discussions in the course. Readings Bias: N/A Comments: The books didn't make any political statements. General Comments: This is in no way a personal attack against the professor; he's a really nice guy. I didn't like it when politics were mentioned in a course that wasn't a political science course. It seemed like he was using this course to espouse his personal politics that had nothing to do with the subject matter. [The UC Board of Regents Academic Freedom policy states,"Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted ... constitutes misuse of the University as an institution" (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/rp6065.html).] This course did have pretty frequent intrusions of off-topic political subjects. He mentioned President Bush, the 2003 recall election in California, Rush Limbaugh, American Empire, and the War in Iraq quite a few times that had nothing to do with the subject of geography. [UC Faculty Code of Conduct: "Unacceptable faculty conduct" includes "Significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course" (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf)] It doesn't matter what political beliefs any of these professors have, as long as they don't let it interfere with a subject matter that has nothing to do with politics. Professors who use their politics to indoctrinate students need to be called out for their conduct and either clean up their act or get fired. Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Davis Mar. 28, 2003 http://www.ucdavis.edu CA Course: ANT 2: Cultural Anthropology Course Catalog Description: Introduction to cultural diversity and the methods used by anthropologists to account for it. Family relations, economic activities, politics, gender, and religion in a wide range of societies. Current problems in tribal and peasant societies. Professor: Suzanna Sawyer Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: In the first few weeks of this class, the topic was race. The professor, using sources, claimed that race has no biological foundation. While it is obvious and known that the term "race" is a loaded one with many misconceptions inherent within it, it is also true that there is such a thing as ethnicity. This particular professor is arguing that no such thing exists and that science has been misleading us. This seemed like an interesting view, but I became concerned when political orientation kept surfacing in the lectures and the materials. "Liberals" agree with this line of reasoning, etc. Why should political orientation enter into an anthropological discussion? Also, when asked a question she doesn't like, the professor seems to answer a different question or ignores it completely. It seems like, in this class, if one believes that there are different ethnicities one is racist! The second topic of the class was gender. Under this section, we were encouraged to accept the idea that sex is biological and that gender is a social construct. That's fine, but we were encouraged to accept transgendered identities as something outside of gender. This is not a position that I have ever been inclined to agree with, and yet the acceptance of "non" gendered and transgendered seemed to be taken for granted in this class. She used Serena Nanda's text "Neither Man nor Woman, the Hijras of India" to prove her point. Unfortunately, the Hijras have a religious position and have a place in society, which has nothing to do with today's counter gender culture. Quote from class notes- "Gender is deeply intertwined with issues of power and inequality." The third topic was globalization. This entire class had a clearly liberal bias. The professor presented only anti-race, anti-gender, and anti-globalization positions. Totally unacceptable. Not once does she present valid alternative views in lecture. The course description was accurate, but we discussed one side of those issues! Discussion Bias: Objectionable Comments: Though the TA never really gave her own opinion, she upheld the professor's opinions. I must say that discussion was much better than lecture. The TA was more concerned about making sure we knew the material, and she was never hostile. One more thing- I wrote a paper where my argument was that the globalization of ideas was liberating for women in other countries. I wrote "...after the Taliban were deposed, many women were able to come out into public and partake in society. This is not to argue that they were given equal rights as women are in American society, but I would argue that it is better for them now than it was during the Taliban regime. Thus in this respect, globalization has had a positive effect on both American society and those which it has influenced. The globalization that I am referring to, however, refers only to the migration of ideas, and not to any other type of exchange. The other types of exchange are surrounded by controversy which this paper will not discuss." TA's note in the margin- "in many societies women have MORE equality than in the US- so it is not simply a case of America 'bringing' equal rights to anyone." (That is a direct quote.) I would challenge ANYONE to name just one country where this is the case. Can you believe this TA is a PhD candidate? [Note: Student faxed documentation to NoIndoctrination.org.] Readings Bias: Objectionable Comments: The required texts were "Biology as Ideology" (Lewontin), "Neither Man nor Woman" (Nanda,) and "Ain't No Makin It" (MacLeod). We also had a reader and films. I feel that the readings that we were assigned only argued one side of the issue. General Comments: At the University of California Davis, undergraduate courses are required to have a final. Our final was supposed to be on March 20, 2003. Instead of giving a final, she wrote anti-war and anti-American websites on the board - www.alternet.org, www.progressive.org, www.indymedia.org, www.projectcensored.org, www.sacpeace.org, www.davispeace.org. The only other things on the board were Davis and Sacramento antiwar/America protests. (After input from a student, she did put the time and place of the Rally for America in Sacramento, but that was it.) She said that we might notice that there was not the full amount of students attending that day. She said something like "one student is in Iraq (activated), and many others have travelled to San Francisco to protest the war. So, after much deliberation with my TA's, I have decided to cancel the final." She cancelled the final, wasting my and my fellow student's time studying and showing up for class. There were approximately 340 students in this class, and the final was 30% of our grade. The final was comprehensive, so we all had to spend a considerable time studying. What surprised me was that students were happy. I mean sure I was happy to get "full credit" on the final, but because my professor is rabid about her causes? Not that way! [Several days after this posting went online, the following article appeared in the The California Aggie: "Professors excused students from anthropology finals." http://www.californiaaggie.com/_articles/6061.taf ] [The UC Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf) states that it is "unacceptable conduct" for a faculty member to fail "to hold examinations as scheduled."] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Irvine (UCI) Apr. 3, 2004 http://www.uci.edu CA Course: E105: African American Slave Narrative Course Catalog Description: "Multicultural Topics in English-Language Literature": Treats the literary consequences of relations and conflicts between races, genders, classes, ethnic groups, and other forms of cultural identity prevalent at different moments in history. May be repeated for credit as topics vary. ["African American Slave Narrative" was the course title for Winter 2004.] Professor: Lindon W. Barrett Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: Lindon Barrett's class was hardly an English class: it was more a forum to proliferate his political views. Indeed, he tried to gain an affirmative reaction from the class during his "editorializing." He always tried to make us think about our political moment. Towards the end of the class, he even went so far as to say that Christianity was the cause of all the hatred, oppression, and economic recession we encounter today. Now, I have had Barrett before. I took him in Fall 2003 for English 102D ["Bloomsbury & Harlem"]. On the first day of that class, he had English 105 typed out on the syllabus. At that time, I had thought it odd to confuse these two supposedly different classes. However, upon taking English 105, I realized how Barrett could confuse the two classes: he basically said the same thing for both classes. One might wonder why I took Barrett for two quarters in a row if I did not like his class. It was simply because I want to graduate this spring, and that the only way to do that was to take his class again. After two miserable quarters in Barrett's class, I discovered something about Barrett. He has something of a multipersonality: there is the "Academic Barrett," and the "Political Barrett." The Academic Barrett is mind-numbingly boring. Sure, he addressed the literature that we were supposed to be reading (I did not read anything for the course, because it was completely unnecessary), but he ensconced the literature under his theory that literature was a "power dynamic," that is, it was unnecessary to look at literature for the words (analyzing metaphor, simile, theme, etc.), but for the play of power between blacks and whites, and males and females. He also used meaningless jargon to promote his ideas, but (sadly) that is common for English classes. He simply did not stimulate an interest in the works we were reading. The above makes Barrett simply a bad professor (though hardly a professor... I doubt he "professed" any knowledge). However, the Political Barrett came out in nearly every class. Interestingly enough, he would drop the academic jargon and speak normally (even throwing in the occasional vulgar word). He became alive and colorful, and was full of Marxist (sometimes hypocritical) commentary concerning the mess we are in. It seemed Barrett himself had a natural distaste for literature, and would rather talk about politics instead. Barrett introduced himself (for both classes) as left wing. Not only did he have an endless supply of insults for George W. Bush (basically calling him insane), he made comments concerning Howard Dean's campaign. He even expounded his theory that "they" (whoever "they" are) forced Howard Dean out of the presidential race because Howard Dean was thinking about removing Alan Greenspan. He said that Martha Stewart was put on trial because "white men" spread power laterally, and that a woman CEO could not be part of that "cult of the brother." He even went so far as to say that there is nothing more dangerous than a white man in power. Not only were his political views contradictory (considering that Howard Dean is a "white man" trying to get in power, and Martha Stewart was a "capitalist," something he was inherently against), but they were unnecessary, especially for an English class. Barrett did not stop at national politics. He made comments about how horrible the university's English department was. He vented about the conservatism of Orange County (even expressing pride about how he lived in Long Beach). Barrett stepped into international politics as well. He had a plethora of opinions concerning the war in Iraq. The list can just go on: Janet Jackson exposing herself, gas prices and SUVs, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor. There was nothing that went on that Barrett did not have some comment about. He would somehow tie these things in with the literature we were reading, but I neither saw the connection, nor was it made explicitly clear. Barrett would play ten minutes of "African American" music (Hip-Hop, Rhythm and Blues, Gospel, etc.) at the start of most of the classes, and somehow tie that in to the slave narrative reading. I simply could not understand: how could a recording that happened one hundred (plus) years after African American slavery reflect that the slave narrative (either written during the time of slavery or immediately afterward) was somehow an inaccurate protrayal of slavery? Most questions saw no real response, and there was no real opportunity to exchange ideas. As is evident, I could continue about how much I hated Barrett (the man, and his class). Even though I would draw some of the same conclusions as Barrett's, his reasoning greatly differed from mine (so much so, I hardly think it is "reasoning"). Even if I did completely agree with Barrett, the classroom was no forum to propogate those views. There is more stuff that I will not get into right now (how Barrett rarely showed up to class on time, how he did not give out our survey for Winter 2004, etc.), for I have written too much as it is. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: There were no discussion sections, so there was no propogation of bias. Readings Bias: None Comments: Seeing how I did not do any of the readings for English 105, it seems pointless to express the bias of the readings. (I got a good grade without reading anything for his class. All it took to do well in Barrett's class is remembering certain episodes he talked about, remember how he interpreted them, and then to reiterate those episodes and interpretations on the exam/paper.) It is enough to say that it did not matter much whether the readings were biased or not, Barrett did not need the readings to express his political views. General Comments: [Note from NoIndoctrination.org: The UC Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf) states, "Significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course" is "unacceptable" faculty conduct. The UC Board of Regents Policy on Academic Freedom (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/rp6065.html)states, "Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted, ..., constitutes misuse of the University as an institution." ] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Berkeley Jun. 13, 2004 http://www.berkeley.edu CA Course: CS 61 A,C: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs/Machine Structures Course Catalog Description: CS 61A (Structure and Interpretaion of Computer Programs): Introduction to programming and computer science. This course exposes students to techniques of abstraction at several levels: (a) within a programming language, using higher-order functions, manifest types, data-directed programming, and message-passing; (b) between programming languages, using functional and rule-based languages as examples. It also relates these techniques to the practical problems of implementation of languages and algorithms on a von Neumann machine. There are several significant programming projects, programmed in a dialect of the LISP language. CS 61C (Machine Structures): The internal organization and operation of digital computers. Machine architecture, support for high-level languages (logic, arithmetic, instruction sequencing) and operating systems (I/O, interrupts, memory management, process switching). Elements of computer logic design. Tradeoffs involved in fundamental architectural design decisions. [CS = Computer Science] Professor: Brian Harvey Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: How does a statement like ‘Nothing Saddam has done could be any worse than what George Bush has done.’ find its way into a Computer Science lecture?? Ask Brian Harvey, they’re his words. In the past, Harvey’s students learned that California's current governor (Schwarzenegger) is a NAZI. Harvey’s students were informed that a “real” political system would restrict the right to vote to only certain persons that are “smart” enough, that is, only those folks who don't own a television. Why? We can suppose that only persons as “bright” as Harvey have the intellect to govern themselves. Five minutes at both ends of the lecture (but other times as well) was plenty of time for Harvey to take swipes at conservative thinkers and ideas. I happened to be taking his class when the war with Iraq began, and he would often announce anti-war rallies, and make silly comments (most notably when he said something to the effect that Saddam couldn't have done possibly anything worse than Bush... something to that effect, but not an exact quote). Also the next semester, the day after Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor, he was particularly bitter about things, and made a remark to the effect of, ‘Aren't you embarrassed to tell your friends you live in California. We elected a NAZI actor.‘ That’s when he went on about how only people who don't own TV's should be allowed to vote. Harvey is known for his liberal views, and if you check out his personal website (you can find a link at CS faculty home pages: www.eecs.berkeley.edu), he has a link to the "Marxism” page. This alone is not necessarily problematic, but unfortunately, Harvey can’t seem to leave his politics out of the CS classroom. Harvey’s comments were objectionable enough to the extent that I sometimes lost focus on the material at hand, and I would not be surprised if other students were, and continue to be, made uncomfortable by his remarks. If you're motivated, many of his past lectures are still on Berkeley Webcast, and you can check out his statements first hand. Discussion Bias: None Comments: discussions led by unbiased TA's Readings Bias: None Comments: readings related to CS subject matter General Comments: Most of the students in the CS and EECS program at Cal are attending school in order to become technically skilled, thinking engineers. While interest in extracurricular events and activities are deemed important, a clear separation of what is and is not appropriate for classroom discussion is necessary. Unfortunately, in Professor Harvey’s case, “discussion” is not actually the right word ... most of the time, innocent CS freshmen and sophomores simply endure Prof. Harvey explicating his personal beliefs, without room for dissent. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it certainly can be agreed that there must be a better forum for a politically motivated professor to make known his views than in an introductory CS class. [Note from NoIndoctrination.org: The University of California Board of Regents' Academic Freedom Policy (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/rp6065.html) states, "Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted, ..., constitutes misuse of the University as an institution."] Rebuttal University of California, Berkeley May. 10, 2006 http://www.berkeley.edu CA Course: Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop 209 Project Course Catalog Description: See below. Professor: David Montejano and Taeku Le Required? No, purely elective Lecture Bias: N/A Comments: See below. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: See below. Readings Bias: N/A Comments: See below. General Comments: This is a NoIndoctrination.org posting. We were alerted to this course by a UC Berkeley student who sent us the course announcement and application. Below is the information we posted on our homepage under News Flash: This spring UC Berkeley is offering "Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop. 209 Project." (In 1996 California voters passed Prop 209, which prevents the state, including UC, from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity.) The course description states students will analyze data "to craft a political strategy for a successful 'pro-diversity' initiative in the State." The course findings are then to be presented to the chancellor, an outspoken critic of Prop 209. An application form for those wanting to take the course included the following: "Please describe any technical skills that would be useful in a political campaign." UC Regents' Policy on Course Content [http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/6065.html] states that the university must "remain aloof from politics ...." NoIndoctrination.org has a copy of the course announcement and application, which can be viewed here [http://www.noindoctrination.org/BerkeleyProp209.pdf]. The course is part of the Chancellor's Diversity Research Seminars for Undergraduates and was promoted by the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education. (Note: This is not a 198 DeCal student-designed and run course.) The coinstructors for this course are Professor David Montejano (Ethnic Studies) and Professor Taeku Lee (Political Science). NoIndoctrination.org sent a letter [http://www.noindoctrination.org/BerkeleyProp209_letter.pdf] to UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau regarding this matter (with cc's to various administrators, the UC Board of Regents, and CA Senator Jack Scott, Chair of the Senate Education Committee). UC Berkeley's response is pasted below. Rebuttal Submitted: May. 10, 2006 The following was submitted by Christina Maslach, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education: I am responding on behalf of Chancellor Birgeneau to your email of April 27th concerning Ethnic Studies 198: The Prop 209 Project. In Spring 2006, UC Berkeley offered two diversity research seminars for undergraduates: Education 198 "Exploring Transfer Student Success" and Ethnic Studies 198 "The Prop 209 Project." The purpose of the seminars was twofold: (1) to equip students with a set of methodologically sound research skills and tools with which to approach issues of diversity and inclusion; and (2) to provide a structured educational exercise that would give them the opportunity to practice the real-world application of sound scholarship that many will use in their lives as professionals and citizens after they graduate from Cal. The seminars were open to all upper division students in any major, and lower division students upon request of the instructors. Participation in the seminars and the selection of research project topics in the seminars were voluntary. Neither course was a graduation requirement or a prerequisite to any graduation requirement. Rather, the seminars were designed to provide a special enrichment opportunity for students to engage in faculty-mentored research in a small group setting. The Prop 209 Project, co-taught by Professor David Montejano (Ethnic Studies) and Professor Taeku Lee (Political Science), used a case study of Proposition 209 in order to deepen students' understanding of how issues of race and ethnicity interact with the ballot initiative process in the State of California. Within the limits of a two-unit 198 course, students learned a good deal, substantively, about voting behavior, political participation and mobilization, ethnic/racial politics, the initiative/referendum process in California, media framing, and political persuasion. They also learned a good deal, methodologically, about precinct-level, county-level, and state-level data analysis, exit polling, and public opinion polling. By designing a course that required students to apply research findings to realworld problems, the instructors sought to impart substantive and methodological points about political science in a much deeper, more enduring way than would be possible using a more traditional teaching method. Students were never at any time asked to engage in political or partisan activity as part of the seminar. Case studies (even those with a directed point of view or starting point) are frequently used as a learning exercise here and on campuses around the country. The pedagogical approach employed in the seminar is a sound one and is consistent with The Regents' Policy on Course Content "that no campus, no academic college, no department, and no instructor distort the instructional process in a manner which deviates from the responsibilities inherent in academic freedom." Best, Christina Maslach Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Professor of Psychology Note: Although the postings appear to be anonymous, NoIndoctrination.org knows the posters' names. We communicate with the posters before putting their comments online. We also research each posting and ask for corroborating material when appropriate. Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #246. University of California, Berkeley Aug. 8, 2003 http://www.berkeley.edu CA Course: Arabic 15: Spoken Arabic Course Catalog Description: Practice in speaking an Arabic dialect. (This is a special summer course and is not listed in the current General Catalog, but is listed in the summer catalog. http://summer.berkeley.edu/summer2003/coursedetail.lasso?KeyValue=13128). [Mr. Kadhim is a GSI (Graduate Student Instructor), but he is listed in the schedule of classes as the instructor of record.] Professor: Abbas Kadhim Required? No, purely elective Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: He never really plans lectures in advance so all sorts of topics come up. He often uses the classroom as a platform for his views, some of which are absurd and contradict all credible evidence. For example, he claimed that Muslims have NEVER persecuted Jews throughout history (when I brought him a book by Bernard Lewis that details Muslim persecution against Jews, he dismissed the Princeton professor who authored it as a deliberate liar with an agenda). One day he launched into a long speech about how much he loves Jews and Judaism, but he hates Zionism. I asked him how this was possible, and he responded by claiming that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism, but was invented by European Jews. He claimed that the text "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" serves as an example of Zionist philosophy. I was simply astounded. I concluded that he was joking and asked him, laughing, if he was joking. He responded that he was completely serious. I was astounded, and asked him how he could possibly believe something so absurd. He asserted that everything that Zionists have done so far has progressed exactly according to the Protocols, and that it therefore must be a true document. I could not believe my ears. I asked him again, “Are you sure you believe it was written by Jews?” He answered that he did indeed, although he felt it important to clarify that he only meant “Zionist Jews.” I again sought confirmation. I asked him, “You don’t believe it was a forgery?” He shot back, laughing, “Who would have forged it, Muslims?” I tried to explain to him that it was forged by the Tsar’s secret police, and that it is an established fact. He cut me off dismissively and changed the subject. That morning my professor lost all academic integrity in my eyes. [The following statements are from the Encyclopedia Britannica under "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion": "fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century.... The Protocols were printed in Russia in abbreviated form in 1903 in the newspaper Znamia (“Banner”) and subsequently (1905) as an addendum to a religious tract by Serge Nilus, a tsarist civil servant. They were translated into German, French, English, and other European languages and soon came to be a classic of anti-Semitic literature." "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 08 Aug, 2003 .] Discussion Bias: Objectionable Comments: The instructor would not allow me to fully respond to his claim. He cut me off and changed the subject. No one in the class seems to have either the knowledge or the inclination to refute his statements. Readings Bias: N/A Comments: There were no readings. General Comments: Mr. Kadhim frequently digressed into topics completely unrelated to the course. He often brought up his political views about American policies and politics. For example, he accused the Bush administration of inventing the rescue of Jennifer Lynch. He drew a map of the Middle East and labeled the entire country of Israel as "Palestine." Mr. Kadhim spent hours of class time on totally irrelevant material, such as his wife's recipes, or the various locations at which one can obtain halal meat in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is a six-unit intensive language course. While some class time should be reserved for discussing Iraqi culture (an important component of any language course), the ultimate objective is language learning. I feel that the level of the class was ridiculously low because of the lack of language instruction. For example, one woman in the class still had difficulty with the alphabet and other students still had difficulty with basic vocabulary by the fifth week of the class! I definitely think he is abusing his position to indoctrinate students into his world view. By constantly bringing up political and irrelevant topics, and by not allowing any dissenting point of views (frequently either interrupting the dissenter or changing the subject), he is trying to use this language course as a chance to brainwash his students. Again, none of them have the backround to know any better and object. Rebuttal Submitted: Feb. 17, 2004 Here are some comments in response to the student's claims: "Mr. Kadhim spent hours of class time on totally irrelevant material, such as his wife's recipes." This was during the class about Iraqi food (every language class has a chapter on food.) My wife's recipes are as relevant as any Iraqi cooking book. Also, I found no such books accessible. "I feel that the level of the class was ridiculously low because of the lack of language instruction." False! The level of the class is law because it is elementary spoken Arabic that accepted students with no previous knowledge in the language. The writer had over three years of standard Arabic, which gave her an edge and a feeling that the class is not up to her level. "One woman in the class still had difficulty with the alphabet and other students still had difficulty with basic vocabulary by the fifth week of the class!" The writer still has a problem with English after all these years. In her short posting, she made two mistakes at least! She said: "Again, none of them [i.e. the students] have the backround to know any better and object." False! One student spent ten years in the Arab world and numerous trips to the area since then. Another student was born in Iraq and his family are native Iraqis, a third is an Arab and his family members are native Arabs also. The writer cannot claim the same background. Also, it is sad that the writer would display such condescending opinion about her classmates as people who don't "know any better." She certainly shows a character problem. Compare her statement with how they described her to the UC Berkeley paper (The Daily Cal): "peers described [her] as a brilliant student." She certainly can learn a lot from those who, in her opinion, don't "know any better." Abbas Kadhim [This response was submitted 8/8/2003. Our web hosting company discovered a file problem on its server that affected incoming rebuttal email. This caused a delay in posting this rebuttal. We apologize. NoIndoctrination.org] University of California, Berkeley May. 12, 2003 http://www.berkeley.edu CA Course: HIST 7B: American History from the Civil War to the Present Course Catalog Description: Introduction to the history of the United States from the Civil War to the present. This course satisfies the American cultures requirement. Professor: Leon Litwack Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: Professor Litwack focused excessively on negative aspects of American history to portray a country of lies and contradictions, while applauding Socialists and Anarchists. His statements served to characterize their doctrine as noble and worthy of emulation. The professor constantly commented that certain presidents were terrible and ruined the condition of the country, without noting that he was giving his own opinion. In addition, he neglected to comment on what positive things were done by individuals. He focused only on negatives, which portrayed demonic human beings out of those who did not share his political views. An example was when he recommended that law-makers were racist by not supporting affirmative action. His total neglect for counter-arguments to everything and his stating of opinions as fact happened in every lecture. Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: Discussions were led by a Graduate student who was not only incompetent, but who took the professor's lectures as gospel. Her commentary and poorly-led discussions were merely repetitions of the propaganda being forced upon students in lecture. Alternative views were not encouraged in discussion. When I brought up alternative views, I was told to use examples from the class. These examples would have to come from lecture or the texts, however, both showed a one-sided history. Regardless of what I had as a counter-argument, I was told to use class materials. Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: Required Booklist: Out of this Furnace by Thomas Bell, The Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody, Unfinished Nation by Alan Brinkley, 1919 by John Dos Passos, Rise to Globalism by Stephen Ambrose, The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B. Dubois, The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, Dispatches by Michael Herr, Native American Testimony by Peter Nabokov, The Good War: An Oral History of World War Two by Studs Terkel, Black Boy by Richard Wright. Readings had a liberal perspective of history, with favor to the Professor's extremely liberal views. Readings consisted of personal accounts from individuals who were upset with some government action or policy and were questioning in the case of any positive American events. The Souls of Black Folk and Black Boy were emphasized the most. These two books represent opinion and not factual history. If the professor had wanted to use first-person narrative in substantiating his account of history, then he should have provided both sides of issues. An example would have been the writings of Booker T. Washington along with W.E.B. Du Bois. General Comments: One is led to believe that they are going to receive an unbiased account of American History by the course title and description. An appropriate title for this course is: U.S. History after the Civil War as interpreted by a one-sided man who wishes to overthrow capitalism. Each of the historical periods that would be expected to be covered, were covered. However, in each period, Professor Litwack focused on negatives. When one puts together each period, they get a distorted image of the history of America. One would think that the United States has accomplished nothing and is actually worse today than it was 200 years ago. He interpreted everything to a meaning that suited his own views. His total neglect for reasonable arguments was disgusting. This course caters to the huge liberal contingency on campus, while alienating and attacking those with conservative views. Professor Litwack politicized every aspect of this course. This course took the approach of trying to excite and inspire students to actively pursue liberal political policies. Unfortunately the Professor's obvious bias marginalized students who disagreed with his political views, but who needed the course to fullfil their American Cultures requirement. Professor Litwack's agenda was making sure that students left his classroom believing every opinion he expressed. He seemed to be more interested in creating Leftist activists more than making sure students had an accurate grasp of U.S. History. Rebuttal University of California, Berkeley Mar. 20, 2003 http://www.berkeley.edu CA Course: MCB 61: Brain, Mind and Behavior Course Catalog Description: Introduction to human brain mechanisms of sensation, movement, perception, thinking, learning, memory, and emotion in terms of anatomy, physiology, and chemistry of the nervous system in health and disease. Intended for students in the humanities and social sciences and others not majoring in the biological sciences. [MCB = Molecular and Cell Biology] Professor: David Presti Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: Today, March 18, 2003, the professor dedicated 30 minutes of a 1.5 hour lecture to letting about 10 individuals speak out about the reasons students in this 700+ student class should dissent against the war. The professor did not open up the lecture for discussion to see what other people thought. He moved right into his lecture material. The only opportunity for discussion came when the individuals asked if anyone had any questions about the information they presented. One person asked a question of clarification and that was it. The individuals who spoke out were not even students in the class. They seemed to be a group of grad students who may know the professor in one capacity or another. The professor asked them to introduce themselves before speaking. The professor also plays music of his choosing at the beginning of class. In the last 5 weeks or so the music selection has always been about a war topic by artists that were popular during the Vietnam War. He will make comments for about 5 minutes each class when there is a new development about war, an anti-war rally, etc. At end of each class he'll remind students to "hope for peace" or to look into a method of dissent as discussed at beginning of class. I think using his position as a professor to preach his viewpoint on the war situation with Iraq is abusing the respect that he receives from the position. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: n/a Readings Bias: N/A Comments: n/a General Comments: [Update from student poster]: Today in class the professor did mention something about the posting at noindoctrination.org. He started off the class by saying that he received some response from some upset students about this Tuesday's "teach-in" as it is called. I guess it _was_ something previously arranged. He apologized for offending people and said that maybe it would be best not to say anything at all if a two-sided debate could not be had. With that said, he didn't make any more comments about the ongoing war in Iraq. Then he said that a student had posted to noindoctrination.org, a site he hadn't heard of before, commenting about the material. His only rebuttal was that only 3 pieces of music from the last 5 weeks of class were anti-war related, and were not necessarily during the Vietnam War era. Point of clarification, I suppose. I guess I should have mentioned that only SOME of the music were anti-war, but in my haste I generalized. [Submitted and posted March 20, 2003] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Nov. 7, 2004 http://www.ucla.edu CA Course: MCD BIO 40: Aids and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Course Catalog Description: Lecture, five and one-half hours; experiential service learning, 30 minutes. Introduction to interdisciplinary debate surrounding the personal and societal response to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. [MCD = Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology] Professor: Roger E. Bohman Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: One specific example of bias in the classroom happened about half way through the Fall quarter of 2003. Professor Bohman, although a nice man, proceeded to blame President Ronald Reagan for the progression of the world's AIDS epidemic. His argument was that because Reagan ignored the AIDS issue, his policies caused it to spread like wild-fire. Why is this bias? Well, obviously many reasonable individuals wouldn't agree with such a statement. But this is not my reasoning for posting this statement. This was Bohman's understanding of the situation, and he used it in his lectures (on more than one occasion this specific example was mentioned) to not only express an opinion to 250+ students, but also to thousands of students over many years. One person (Reagan) is not responsible for the AIDS epidemic, especially a man who didn't have AIDS, use drug-related products that spread AIDS, or have sexual relations with individuals who had it. It is outrageous just thinking about it. However, one could argue that policies affected the spread of it, which Bohman proceeded to argue, but ONLY ONE SIDE was presented. This is indoctrination. This is like saying, let’s talk about baseball and the Red Sox, but forgetting to mention the Yankees. Furthermore, Professor Bohman had guest speakers attend lectures with their opinions, also claiming that Ronald Reagan was to blame. One of these guest speakers was an older woman who was an AIDS activist, the other from a gay rights group. Professor Bohman, the AIDS activist, and the spokespersons for the gay and lesbian rights group all had the same agenda. It is hard to believe that every person in the lecture hall on this campus, and even in California, agrees with Bohman’s argument that Reagan is responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Many in the AIDS community do not agree with that assertion. Surely, one can argue an opinion, as Bohman has done, but when an individual in Bohman’s position, as a professor to thousands of students over time, takes a stance on a controversial issue, both sides should be presented. Maybe he could have invited a guest speaker who supports the Reagan Administration’s policies or at least someone who disagrees with the assertion that Reagan was the sole cause of the spread of AIDS. Obviously, and sadly, presenting multiple views was NOT Bohman's intention; he believes in something and he believes you should believe it too, and without your say. Understandably, many of us believe Bohman’s claim is wrong (or at least debatable), but others don't even know it is debatable because Bohman presents only ONE view. The fact is that we live in a democracy, where diversity of opinion should be praised, especially on a college campus like UCLA. However, at UCLA, as I have experienced, professors and administrators alike claim diversity, but mean something else. This is wrong and only separates the students who don't agree with professors, while alienating them at the same time. A failed democracy is where a diversity of opinions is oppressed or not discussed. Most of the country is on track, except college campuses. Why? The professors teach the students to believe in something they believe in, without expressing what other people might think about the subject. Individuals then go on believing it to be truth. However, there is personal responsibility on both sides. Students should research what people say, and professors should research what they say, and vice-versa. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: There was no discussion section for this class. There was never a question and answer period with the professor. He just lectured. However, there was a question and answer period with the guest speakers. But I was not willing at the time to "call-out" any of the speakers. Honestly, I was intimidated as a first year transfer at UCLA. Nevertheless, I should have said something in regard to the questionable statements the speakers were making. In that case it is my fault that I did not stand for truth, or at least a difference of opinion. Readings Bias: Noticeable Comments: The Reagan example mentioned above also included a short reading on the fact that Reagan's policies caused the spread of AIDS. No other opinion was mentioned or discussed. General Comments: U.C.'s statement on Academic Freedom (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf) states,"The University also seeks to foster in its students a MATURE INDEPENDENCE OF MIND, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless STUDENTS AND FACULTY are free within the classroom to express the widest range of viewpoints in accord with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics." UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf) states, "The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and CRITICALLY EXAMINING KNOWLEDGE and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom." Professor Bohman did not honor either of these two obligations as a professor. Overall the course was fairly enjoyable and full of good information, but basically, the professor let his opinions get in the way of his teaching. Bohman is a passionate man, and loves teaching, which I respect him for, but his opinions in this case are not facts, and therefore not encouraging for a free intellectual environment. Nonetheless, on more than one occasion Bohman did state that "we" did not have to agree with him. However, this does not make it right, especially according to the regulations that UCLA has set for all professors and faculty to follow. Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Oct. 17, 2003 http://www.ucla.edu CA Course: COMM 165: Agitational Communication Course Catalog Description: Lecture, four hours; discussion, one hour (when scheduled). Theory of agitation; agitation as force for change in existing institutions and policies in a democratic society. Intensive study of selected agitational movements and technique and content of their communications. Professor: Paul Von Blum Required? No, purely elective Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: On the first day of class, the professor blatantly stated that professors have absolutely no obligation to be "balanced." He then went on to list the type of people that he would not welcome into his home, which included those who have a religious or moral conviction against homosexuality ("homophobes"). He complained that the primary and secondary educational systems are not biased enough to the left, and called many important American historical figures "racist" and "sexist", even though their ideas are responsible for the environment that fostered his own success. He constantly heralded Malcolm X as a great hero and martyr, as well as himself for being a "foot soldier" in various social protest movements in the 20th century. He directly referred to conservatives as "weird", and called the national anthem "stupid". Additional lecture notes: - Called Charles Lindbergh a "fascist" with no further discussion. - Discredited all of Henry Ford's contributions to technology, society, and working conditions on the grounds that he may have been an anti-semite. - Brought up figures he called "extreme right-wing" like Rev. Jimmy Swaggert and pointed out personal faults like being caught with a prostitute in order to discredit them (no mention of Clinton). - Called Ann Coulter a "piece of work...I would use more colorful language [implied the "b" word], but I'll do that in private." - Called the promiscuity of the counter-culture movement "sexual liberation." - Called George W. Bush "an example of someone who talks about it [sex] a lot more than he does it" in the context of defending the hippies whom he claimed didn't have much sex. - Advocated reparations for blacks. - Compared American anti-communist propaganda in the 1950s to Stalinist indoctrination. - Called the Boy Scouts "homophobic" and "paramilitary", and defined them in terms of "sitting around making knots." I would not say he "just" seems to be using the course as a personal soapbox. The difficulty is that the course topic itself largely lends itself to expression of sociopolitical views, so it is not hard for him to disguise his indoctrination attempts as legitimate academic inquiry. I would contend that no "scholarly" views on the topics are expressed at all. The nature of the professor's lectures is akin to a carefully calculated radical leftist political campaign speech. Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: The TA makes no offer to attempt not to cuss if it bothers anyone, instead tries to justify his inability to complete a paragraph without the F word or the S word. He said he is on par with the professor in saying that it is stupid to try to be objective. Expressionately read flamboyant (and very offensive, in my opinion) poem by Baraka (not sure of first name) called "Somebody Blew up America," which blames everything imaginable, including September 11, on white people. The poem also included insults concerning Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, and Ward Connerly for not being liberals. He offered Baraka's response to criticism of the poem, but not the criticism itself. He defended the outrageous claims and sentiments of the poem vigorously. The TA more obviously uses the discussion time as a personal soapbox. The topics discussed in the section usually don't have any relevance to the current topic in the lecture. Every now and then, the TA will ask the class what something has to do with agitation (the course theme). From my vantagepoint, this looks like a transparent attempt to disguise an ulterior agenda. [The poem mentioned by the poster is by Amiri Baraka. It can be read at http://www.counterpunch.org/poem1003.html] Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: Required texts: "APS - This Mighty Dream" by Von Blum, "Sixties Papers" by Albert, and "Trial & Death of Socrates" by Plato. General Comments: I would like to point out that neither the professor nor the T.A. made any effort to keep me from sharing my views in the class. They both called on me whenever I raised my hand. Nobody else has spoken up. It appears that the views of the prof and the TA are widely shared by the class. I am certain there are no other viewpoints represented in my particular discussion section, and any divergent viewpoints in the main lecture are probably not expressed due more to peer hostility than professor hostility. While I am given due forum to express my views in the lecture and discussion, my views are far from respectfully received, and have never been validated as legitimate perspectives. In fact, the TA has closed the class with the last word being "XXX [name of poster deleted by NoIndoctrination.org] is showing a grave misunderstanding of the position of the people he is talking about" as the students have already left their seats. Given the course catalog description, I did not think that the course would relentlessly romanticize everyone in American history who has ever "agitated." I expected to hear the perspectives of both sides, rather than the professor's personal testimonies of unabashed affection for and dedication to any kind of protest movement. Furthermore, I naively believed that the professor would indeed take a scholarly approach to understanding these issues. Conversely, he took an uncompromisingly apologistic approach. Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Riverside (UCR) Jul. 17, 2003 http://www.ucr.edu CA Course: SOC 169: Modern Sociological Theory Course Catalog Description: UCR Course Catalog Description: Analysis and critical evaluation of sociological theory from 1920 to the present; growth of current sociological theories and recent trends in conceptual formulations. Course Description (from the professor's course syllabus): "This course introduces you to a number of different types of contemporary social theory, so that you are familiar with the kinds of questions they ask and the major theoretical assumptions. You will be asked to THINK CRITICALLY [emphasis added] about these theories and their application, consider their similarities and differences, and identify their major strengths and weaknesses. We will address the following types of modern theory in this course: structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, critical theory and Hegalian Marxism, post-modernism and post-structuralism, world systems theory, post-colonial theory, and feminist theory. Most of the theorists we will read explore various kinds of relations of domination, how they are maintained or challenged, and/or their impacts on people's lives and consciousness." Professor: Ellen Reese Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: Professor's far-left, politically correct bias was patently obvious throughout the duration of the class. To myself and fellow students, she resembled an activist far more than an actual educator because of the double standard type manner she presented the course material in - either wildly encouraging it, or, as in the case of functionalism (which can be interpreted by some as being pro-capitalist), strongly discrediting it. On at least several occasions in lecture, the professor urged students to "celebrate diversity" as well as other equally mind-numbing cliches. Early on in the course, the professor publicly lamented how many of her fellow colleagues at the university did not respect her, which she stated was due to the fact that "I'm female and I'm younger." However as the course rapidly progressed, I soon strongly suspected that there might be "alternative" explanations for this. Indeed, even I - a generally very progressive, if critical, thinker - found the extreme ideological imbalance of her lectures and teaching style highly troubling. Case in point: the course started out the first week with a focus upon the functionalist theoretical perspective. Analytically, unlike most all other theories we examined in the course, functionalism does not adhere to a specific leftist political persuasion. Therefore, evidently, the professor seemed to feel the need to excessively critique the theory for the vast majority of time spent on it. In fact, she readily supplied students with point after critical point against functionalism, in a rather transparent attempt to evidently invalidate it. It must be noted, however, that she did not, in turn, hold this same lofty standard to any of the left-oriented theories which she spent the vast majority of the her time lecturing about, specifically: neo-Marxism, post-colonialism, postmodernism, post-structuralism, liberal feminist and radical feminist theories. In fact, she did not critique them (negatively) at all. A direct example of this blatant double standard can be evidenced in material covered in "radical feminist theory". For instance, when reciting both Susan Brownmiller's and Shulamith Firestone's theories of which in large part amounted to female moral superiority over men, she offered absolutely no critique that called into question such controversial ideas. The professor distributed radical feminist handouts in class of this material, which boldly proclaimed that female values were specifically "egalitarianism, cooperation, nurturance", while male values encompassed "hierarchy, competition, violent aggression". Although she offered additional feminist perspectives (for example, Betty Friedan's "tactic" to "re-socialize" men), nothing critiqued the material directly. Moreover, the professor would persistently pepper each lecture with numerous leading questions in an attempt, I believe, to evoke a uniform response that would drive students towards one predetermined, ideological conclusion. As a student who attempts to evaluate academic material through a critical, independent perspective, it was difficult and, at times, even intellectually insulting, to sit through ten whole weeks of such lectures, dumbstruck at the non-stop blatant bias the professor so openly exhibited each day. Concerning her actual interaction with students during the course, in general she openly encouraged, through soft condescending tones, knowing smiles and nods of affirmation, students who parroted her own beliefs and ideas, yet grilled the occasional student who dared to even remotely challenge the material in a critical way, with abrupt, defensive remarks of "How do you know that?". If students chose to openly challenge her intellectual assumptions, her soft, "nurturing" style would promptly transform into one of antagonism. Clearly, the critical thinking her course description encouraged was only welcomed if it reflected the proper ideological direction of the professor. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: The TA for the class was the one silver lining of the course. Despite being a mere graduate student, his teaching skills were far superior to that of the professor's. Although seemingly left-leaning, he did not attempt to push the students in a certain ideological direction as did the professor. He not only seemed far more intellectually mature and secure than the professor, but also quite fair. For this I was grateful! Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: The course readings consisted of two primary sources: "The Structure of Sociological Theory" textbook by Jonathon Turner (another UCR professor), and a course reader which the professor herself had personally put together for the class. Although assigned readings were given from the textbook, these readings were rarely alluded to in lecture, and in fact, were completely unnecessary to even read if you read the reader and attended class. The reader, however, was greatly emphasized, with the largest bulk of it devoted to numerous feminist theories. A great portion of the reader was taken from socialist, multi-cultural, ethnic studies and feminist theory publications. Approximately twenty-eight of the thirtyfive pieces we were assigned to read in it came from a left or far-left perspective. Three by Talcott Parsons could be deemed moderate to conservative, and four others were relatively apolitical (seemingly, it's hard to politicize symbolic interactionism). The readings from Professor Reese's course reader clearly promoted an imbalance in perspective which in my view, heavily encouraged critical thought in a specific leftist direction. The socio-political bias stemming from it would be patently clear to any objective individual reading it. General Comments: I learned very little besides what the professor's personal beliefs were and the transparent ways she attempted to indoctrinate students. I didn't feel that the course in any significant way prepared me for graduate school because the professor's teachings promoted a doctrinaire, dogmatic and ideological perspective, rather than intellectual one. I believe fairness and intellectual balance can only be achieved through de-politicized, non-agenda driven methods of teaching. Certainly, professors have a right to their own viewpoints, but I believe they should also be respectful enough to allow students to make up their own minds. This, I believe, can only be achieved through gaining a genuinely full, complete, balanced and thus, educated perspective, not a propagandized one. Given the way this course was taught, this was not possible. Without a doubt, I believe the professor utilized her position of power as a platform for propaganda. I recall wondering while taking the class whether she was even aware of the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM 015) [http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf] concerning issues of student academic freedom. ["As teachers, the professors encourage the free pursuit of learning of their students. They protect their [students'] academic freedom."] It is "interesting" to note that even her course description focused upon such issues: how the powerful in our society too often abuse their positions to take advantage of the less powerful. Ironically, the professor herself greatly stressed in her lectures such utopian, altruistic ideas as "egalitarianism" and "social justice", yet in reality, did not respect students' academic freedom enough to even allow them a fair opportunity to decide for themselves the answers to numerous, crucial economic and social questions of our time. In my view, this is a sign of true arrogance in an instructor - a quality I believe is deeply poisonous to the principles of higher education today. University of California, Riverside (UCR) Jul. 17, 2003 http://www.ucr.edu CA Course: Soc 169: Modern Sociological Theory Course Catalog Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour. Prerequisite(s): SOC 001. Analysis and critical evaluation of sociological theory from 1920 to the present; growth of current sociological theories and recent trends in conceptual formulations. Professor: Ellen Reese Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: From the material itself to the way it was taught, the professor’s ideological bias was easy to detect. She was required to cover certain perspectives as part of the required core curriculum. The bulk of the lecture about ideas that were unlike her own was critique, demonstrating primarily the weaknesses. However, when discussing the theories she enthusiastically agreed with, her emphasis was on their strengths. Particularly with feminist theory and the patriarchal superstructure, she covered the main perspectives, but built upon them in such a way until the class had reached the “absolute conclusion”, the perspective that she subscribed to, and cut discussion off at this point with little criticism. She expected us to accept that certain beliefs (patriarchy, that all women are unhappy, female moral superiority) are a given. If you are going to heavily critique certain perspectives, the critiques of ALL covered perspectives need to be addressed to obtain balanced discourse, otherwise there is an inherent double standard at play. She did not hold the far left theorists to the same standards of the functionalists, the more moderate theoretical perspective within sociology. Her classroom discussions consisted of asking leading questions, which were set up to receive her desired answers and “prove her point”. These questions were nearly rhetorical, having only one answer that “seemed to make sense” (Are all….this way?), thus not encouraging the students to think, but directing their thoughts to agreement with her personal beliefs. When the desired answer was given, students were met with praise and encouragement. When students questioned her or did not give desired answers, they were met with a near hostility that certainly did not foster an environment of open debate and critical thinking. For example, one student who had intellectually challenged her on previous occasions was singled out for the sole crime of smiling during lecture one day (I didn’t know smiling was illegal in the American classroom- isn’t this a bit totalitarian?). She asked why, and he asked why she wanted to know. The professor vaguely qualified her reasons, to which the student then replied that he was finding inaccuracies and inconsistencies within her lecture. Specifically, he stated that the politically correct, far-left, feminist theorists did not want a diversity of perspectives, as she categorically stated. Instead, the student voiced, they want a homogeneity of opinions like their own. Directly after lecture, while handing back papers to students, she stated sternly to this particular student, "I want to speak to you after class". Professor Reese organized mock debates between students, arming each ideological side with material to base their opinions on the previous day. Not surprisingly, a female student who wanted to argue the conservative side of an issue (Mumia Abdul Jamal- innocent victim of the racist infrastructure or criminal?) couldn’t believe the weakness of the material the professor gave her to argue her point, believing it was intentionally done so to weaken the conservative side of the argument. She even courageously expressed her dismay about it separately to both the professor and fellow students after the class and furthermore, it was shocking to me that the professor could not even trust the students to come up with their own arguments. It seemed as though she was again trying to lead the argument in a certain direction. Discussion Bias: None Comments: My discussion was lead by a TA, who countered our lectures with objective, scientific discussion. He thoroughly explained that which the professor breezed through, the material that did not support her personal agenda. He critiqued what the professor so subjectively championed. Not to say that he agreed with either side in particular, rather he explained all arguments in scientific manner that one would expect from a university. Readings Bias: Objectionable Comments: We had two main texts in this class: 1) The Structure of Sociological Theory by Jonathan H. Turner, a more moderate professor at UCR, with functionalist leanings, and 2) a reader that consisted of selections that the professor felt were appropriate for the course. The Turner text is a book that presents many different perspectives, puts forth the strengths and weaknesses that have been argued for and against each perspective, and avoids taking any definitive side by striving for scientific objectivity. I like this text, because it represents the science behind sociology that initially attracted me to the discipline. The professor’s reader, to state it simply, was the polar opposite. Of approximately 35 articles, 20 articles clearly purported the professor’s personal beliefs, several more purported her beliefs in a more roundabout way, a few covered interactionist theory, which is not a theory that was ideologically argued by the professor but was part of the required curriculum she had to cover, and the remaining articles seemed to be obligatory, from famous theorists the professor may have disagreed with, but who also were part of the core curriculum. In class she made sure we all knew these theorists were “wrong”. The vast bulk of our readings came from this reader. Furthermore, whenever a reading was considered “unnecessary” and removed for the assigned reading, it came from the Turner text. The Turner text was so deemphasized, a student could have been successful in this course without even opening it. However, one would have failed without reading the professor’s selections. General Comments: Despite my reservations about the way this course was taught, I did receive an A. Not because I was intellectually stimulated and inspired to produce great work, but because I gave them what they wanted. Facing the G.P.A. dilemma (I wanted to attend graduate school), I did not challenge them in papers, and limited my critical discourse in lecture. This is a pathetic reminder that in higher education today, it’s not about what you are thinking or learning, it’s about who you (pretend to) agree with. University of California, Riverside (UCR) Dec. 4, 2002 http://www.ucr.edu CA Course: HIST 20: Twentieth Century World History Course Catalog Description: HIST 020H. Honors World History: Twentieth Century. (Prerequisite(s): admission to the University Honors Program or consent of instructor. Honors course corresponding to HIST 020. An introduction to world cultures, political systems, war, and revolution in the twentieth century. Topics include the rise and fall of the superpowers, colonization and decolonization, boom and bust, fascism and communism, world wars, and contemporary history. Professor: Devra Weber Required? Yes, for all students Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: At the beginning of the course the professor announced that she would read a different newspaper article related to different opinions of current world events from major news papers. So far we have had 17 lectures and she has read 14 articles. In all but three of these lectures, one being a midterm, she has read editorials from politically left newspapers explaining why George Bush is going to destroy America as we know it by killing all the innocent people in Iraq. When I told her that she was hypocritical for saying she was going to read a variety of opinions, she responded, “I included a Republican criticism of Bush’s war as well.” Although these articles were only read at the beginning of class to “stimulate our minds for world history” as the professor describes it, they helped her set the stage for her later lectures. They eventually fell into place connecting modern events to an anti-American, anti-globalization lecture during the final week of the course. In addition to biased articles at the beginning of class, the professor claimed that today America essentially has a one-party system because the Democrats have moved so far to the political right. I think this particular comment was inappropriate, untrue and frankly quite confusing to some of the students who didn’t realize what she was getting at. On one occasion the professor said Bush is making particular decisions about Iraq because he does not study history. She then went on to say that some people just aren’t smart enough to understand history: a subtle attack at Bush’s intelligence. Discussion Bias: Objectionable Comments: The professor leads my discussion as well. On the first day of discussion the professor was completely one sided in her presentation on how History is used by politicians. She gave us hand-outs of two political speeches made in the 80’s. One was a State of the Union by Ronald Reagan; the other was a speech by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. The Reagan speech made reference to George Washington in Valley Forge and Lincoln during the height of the Civil War. It was intended to demonstrate American greatness during rough times in American history. The Jesse Jackson speech spoke about union strikes and racial oppression and the existence of black poverty provoked by and created intentionally by white people. The professor presented the Reagan speech as an incorrect way to use history in a speech because it is not the true history of the common man. She said the Jesse Jackson speech was much more telling of the oppression felt by minorities. I began to assert that the history of Lincoln and Washington is the history of all Americans. She cut me off to tell me that individuals of color could not relate to either of those two individuals because their ancestors were enslaved or oppressed at the time. The argument escalated to the point where she essentially said that history for one person is completely different than history to another. I have never experienced this sort of relativism in History. Readings Bias: None Comments: The reading is not biased General Comments: [Note: The American Historical Association's Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct (http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/professionalstandards.cfm) under "Teaching" states, "Integrity in teaching means presenting competing interpretations with fairness and intellectual honesty"; "Within the bounds of the historical topic being studied, the free expression of legitimate differences of opinion should always be a goal." ] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Riverside (UCR) Dec. 4, 2002 http://www.ucr.edu CA Course: ETST 001: Introduction to the Study of Race and Ethnicity Course Catalog Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour. ETST 001 will introduce students to major concepts and controversial issues in the study of race and ethnicity and shall provide a general overview of topics to be covered in more specialized Ethnic Studies courses. Professor: Dr. Richard Lowy Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: In an attempt to justify the uneven socio-economic conditions of African Americans in the United States today, the professor blamed the conditions on overt racism everyday by white people all across the nation. The professor essentially defined racism as an opinion or attitude of a white individual toward an individual of color. I then asked him, “Does this mean that an individual of color in America can not be racist?” He responded, telling me that was correct. Based on the oppression that African Americans experienced in America, they could not be racist. The professor was so excessive on this perspective that some of the black students in the class actually told me that he made them uncomfortable. White racism was absolutely the theme of every lecture. Since the professor believed only white people could be racist, naturally the whole course was about white racism. At one point in lecture the professor came across as outright religiously persecuting. He was talking about how Christians were engaging in systematic racist works. He talked about how they were associated with Neo-Nazis and KKK. As a Christian I found this shocking and personally offensive. However after reading the texts I realized that he was referring to extremist groups in the Christian Right, like the Christian Identity and Christian Reconstructionists. When I confronted him after class on the difference between these two groups he was apologetic for the confusion but it didn’t remedy the fact that he had already given his misleading lecture to the entire class. I still feel that not differentiating in this case was part of his personal agenda and a direct violation of the UC’s statement of Academic Freedom, restricting teachers from using their course “as a platform for propaganda." He also poked fun at the intelligence of George Bush and compared him to a monkey in appearance. I found this to be rather conflicting with his self-proclaimed goal of open intellectual debate. He also went on to make fun of Bush’s “primitive” belief in moral absolutism, a value I believe in very strongly. To deliver this personal belief to a classroom of still shaping young minds is also a violation of the UC’s statements of Academic Freedom, "To convert, or to make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty.” Discussion Bias: Objectionable Comments: The discussion was objectionable because the TA also supported the professor’s assertions about how only white people can be racist. She told us that people of color could be prejudiced toward whites or other people of color. However they were not in a position to be racist. It was really unusual, as if they were redefining these words for their course. None of the teachers actually discouraged classroom participation or argumentation on this matter. However to make the point that black people can not be racist in a course that had disproportionately large black enrollment, prevented most disagreeing students from being eristic. Readings Bias: Objectionable Comments: Here is a list of the primary texts for the course. They were both left wing extremist and offered little variety of opinions or balance to the course. 1) Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: The Guildford Press, 2000; 2) Joe R. Feagin, Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge, 2000 General Comments: N/A Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Jun. 3, 2004 http://www.ucsd.edu CA Course: SOC D/189: Sept. 11 & Its Aftermath Course Catalog Description: This is a "Special Topics in Comparative-Historical Sociology" course. Course Description: Readings and discussion in selected areas of comparative and historical macro-sociology. Topics may include the analysis of a particular research problem, the study of a specific society or of cross-national institutions, and the review of different theoretical perspectives. Contents will vary from year to year. Prerequisite: upper-division standing. [The topic for Winter 2004 was "Sept 11."] Professor: Jonathan Paul Markovitz Required? No, purely elective Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: Prof. Markovitz told us from the start that he does not believe in objectivity; he says that everyone has a bias, so he won't try to hide his. Sure enough, the class seemed divided into two main sections: why the United States has always been wrong, and why the United States is still wrong in attacking terrorism. His early lecture topics included the Red Scare, Japanese internment, the Black Panther movement, and McCarthyism. None had any ties to Sept. 11 or Islamist terrorism (a term he never used), and never did he point out any good things the U.S. has ever done; it was all very, very negative. He then focused on America's Middle East policy over the past few decades. It was apparently intended to demonstrate that we're hypocrites, and that Islamists have every reason to hate us; again, all very negative. Interestingly, there was no mention at all of the events themselves that transpired on Sept. 11, nor was there a meaningful discussion of how the U.S. should react to it. Instead, Prof. Markovitz started the class with the general question on the definition of terrorism, and pondered whether it was terrorism or legitimate warfare, since American civilians vote and pay taxes -- the use of violence against civilians was conspicuously absent from his definitions. However, he made the general decision that when "they" do it, we call it terrorism, but when "we" do it, we call it retaliation, quoting such ideologues as Noam Chomsky in length. His stance became crystal clear: the events on Sept. 11 were terrorism, just as our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ('01 and '03, because both were drummed up by the government and right-wing media) were terrorism, and our conduct within the past century was just awful; therefore, within the realm of moral relativism, we have no moral grounds to condemn the Sept. 11 attacks. One student newspaper columnist briefly mentioned the class in a piece lambasting indoctrination, and even though he mischaracterized the professor's arguments (he wrote that he said Americans deserved the attacks, which he did not), the professor responded with a letter to the editor that demeaned conservatives in general and mocked the idea of academic freedom. He claims the article was a "right wing effort to undermine academic freedom" and an attempt to "mimic the voice of an unthinking right-wing zealot." Rather than choosing to open a dialogue on the issue of academic bias, Prof. Markovitz chose ridicule (http://www.ucsdguardian.org/cgi-bin/opinion?art=2004_02_26_03). One day I actually decided to visit my professor, and I was honest with him: I thought he taught the class in a completely unfair, biased fashion, and I urged him to reconsider his teaching of the class in a way that would provide students with all major ideology, so they can learn the facts and make up their own minds. Prof. Markovitz responded to my request by telling me that he does not feel it's his duty to go into theories that he feels have no credibility whatsoever, and that was that. He reinforced the point after the critical Guardian article, making it clear that he felt he had every right to teach the course in whatever way he saw fit. Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: I at first attempted to convey the conservative side of the issues -- which had been utterly ignored -- through class participation. I was passionate on the topic, having become reasonably knowledgeable on Islamist terrorism through my own readings, so I was determined not to be quiet. My class participation was not greeted with approval, either. While my peers' observations and arguments were greeted with unquestioning approval, mine were greeted with skepticism and irrelevance. When discussing the protests of the recent war in Iraq, a few students commented that they were treated unfairly by the police, inciting sympathy on his part. I told how that at a counter-protest, the police had to protect us from getting harmed by protestors, and that a homeless man had spat on me. He literally laughed at me and said that wasn't very likely to have happened, even though I was there and he was not. He then entertained the comments from those in the room furious at my apparent blasphemy; I knew at that point that I was not welcome, and refrained from comment for the remainder of the quarter. Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: The reader -- which Prof. Markovitz claimed demonstrated opposing viewpoints -- contained only differing schools of leftist thought, and included caricatures of President Bush, with no academic motive. I wrote a paper to justify Operation Enduring Freedom, and even though the grader said my argument and outside sources were great, I received a B simply because the required reading could not back such a common argument. General Comments: Prof. Markovitz provided me with my most disappointing academic experience at UCSD. Sept. 11 was a major turning point in our nation’s history, and I was hoping to participate in an honest, open-minded inquiry into the event, as well as help postulate how our government should respond. Unfortunately, it was a hostile atmosphere in which we were told what to think, rather than how to think. Regardless of the professor’s biases, he as a professional educator should be able to dispense theories he does not personally hold. Due to the professor’s lack of academic integrity and excessive arrogance, the course was truly disappointing. [NoIndoctrination.org note: UC's Academic Freedom policy (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm- 010.pdf): "The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind...." UC Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf): "The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom." "As teachers, the professors encourage the free pursuit of learning of their students. They hold before them the best scholarly standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors....They protect their [students'] academic freedom." "Unacceptable faculty conduct": "Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student...."] Rebuttal University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Oct. 7, 2003 http://www.ucsd.edu CA Course: DOC 3: Dimensions of Culture: Imagination Course Catalog Description: Using the arts, this course examines the evolution of pluralistic culture to the modern period. There is a special emphasis on the interdisciplinary study of twentieth-century American culture, including music, literature, art, film, and photography. The course offers intensive instruction in writing university-level expository prose. Three hours of lecture, two hours of discussion and writing instruction. Open to Marshall College students only. [UCSD's Marshall College requires its students to take a 3-quarter writing program called Dimensions of Culture. This is the 3rdquarter class (Imagination).] Professor: Winifred Woodhull Required? Yes, for all students Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: The point of this required writing program course was to promote a very biased view of 20th century American culture. (The course starts around the depression.) The first reading and first lecture was on George Lipsitz's (a UCSD professor) piece "No Shining City on a Hill." From the beginning, Woodhull came at the class with the ideology that the United States is nothing beyond a despicable and hypocritical country that continues to oppress minorities and the disadvantaged. She made it clear that the ones who were and are responsible for great wrongs are conservatives, who have blinded the masses, in order to keep the truth secret. She talked about how Dick Cheney's wife tried to stop these writings from being taught to students. Through each of the decades that we covered, she attacked traditional ways of viewing society. She believed that the Gulf War was a "revenge for the loss of Vietnam." She said it was just a ploy for "more oil." She inferred that conservatives were simple minded, that life was "more complex" than they realize. I would say that 40% of all her lectures dealt with the "meaning" or HER interpretation of what the assigned articles meant. She talked about how this type of literary study of "minority literature" is important to understanding the sub-culture of American society. Though I agree that this should be a portion of the lit., that was the ONLY PERSPECTIVE that we studied. She did give some historical perspectives, but no actual writing advice at all!!! And the course catalog description says that this class is heavily devoted to writing. Discussion Bias: Noticeable Comments: The TA did provide "constructive criticism" of our writing, but little discussion time was actually spent on the "how to part." (There was, and is, only ONE writing advisor for all of the DOC classes, and the sign up sheet fills up within seconds of its posting on Fridays. That is ridiculous.) I felt the TAs were open to different viewpoints, though they always sided with the professor. Students who disagreed with the TAs and the professor had NO READING OR LECTURE MATERIAL that presented other views. They only had their general knowledge and common sense to back up their arguments, whereas the TAs and agreeing students had EVERY reading as evidence to support their viewpoint. So in order to have an honest debate, I would have to bring in outside information. Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: The DOC-3 reader (a compilation of essays/excerpts) and the book "The Hearts of Men" by Barbara Ehrenreich were 100% biased towards the left. There were no moderate or conservative excerpts. From beginning to end, each reading took a liberal view, simply put. For example, the reading on the Gulf War ("Military Multiculturalism in the Gulf War and After, 1990-1999 by Melani McAlister) focused on how General Colin Powell was just a puppet of the Republican Party. His race was just used to attract African Americans to fight in the war. General Comments: Again, very little writing instruction was provided. The papers we wrote were an introspective style that most students had never learned, and were not really taught to any great extent. You either got it or you didn't. On the last day of class, the professor further patronized us by telling us not to be naive (conservative) - that when we see the light, we will be glad we took the "red pill" (to use, in her words, an analogy to the Matrix). Her sense of reality was the ONLY way to be informed about the world around us. [In June 1999 (more than 3 years *before* this poster's experience), UCSD's Committee on Educational Policy recommended that DOC "add greater range of viewpoints in course readings and in discussion sections." Information obtained using The California Public Records Act.] Rebuttal University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Sep. 30, 2003 http://www.ucsd.edu CA Course: DOC 2: Dimensions of Culture: Justice Course Catalog Description: This course considers the nature of justice in philosophical, historical, and legal terms. Topics include racial justice, political representation, economic justice, gender and justice, the rights of cultural minorities, and crime and punishment. The course offers intensive instruction in writing university-level expository prose. Three hours of lecture, two hours of discussion and writing instruction. Open to Marshall College students only. [This course is required for all Marshall College students at UCSD.] Professor: Samuel Rickless Required? Yes, for all students Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: The course was centered around looking at court cases. The professor discredited all views of the Constitution and rulings that didn't fit his Moral Theory approach. (Moral Theory - a progressive view of the Constitution that provides a broad interpretation - "unenumerated rights" including privacy in the Griswald case, which was the precedent for Roe v. Wade) Though articulate in his disagreement with Detailed and Original Intent approaches, he didn't provide any sort of countering material that argued against him so the students weren't able to disgaree legitimately because they would have no readings to back it up. On certain cases where his views did conflict, he circumvented the issue. In "Hopwood v. Texas" Rickless discredited the case because it wasn't heard by the Supreme Court. What he didn't mention was that they didn't review it becasue they were in AGREEANCE with the decision. It isn't that I even disagree with his view of the Constitution; it was very compelling, but there was no balance. Rickless made it seem like you would have to be insane to take any other view. That is the agenda, that his view is the only correct one. Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: To the TAs, it wasn't even a matter of discussion of how to view the constitution, just how "out-dated" opposing views were. My TA was very respectful of my opinions. That was one good thing. He allowed me to speak my mind without too much fear, but there was never an option to discuss and openly explore alternative views because there was no conflicting literature with respect to the class. Arguing in favor of another interpretation was fruitless. Readings Bias: None Comments: The readings were of court cases, so they weren't biased or tampered. But there were no readings on how to interpret the Constitution. We just had to accept what he had to say as fact unless we wanted to do outside research. Rickless did say that Scalia wrote a book on his views of the Constitution, and if we wanted to read it to see how crazy and unfounded his views were, we could do so. Then he tried to think of the name of the book, and then dismissed the notion. It was such and arrogant and biased comment on his part. General Comments: One of my biggest problems with DOC was that it was extremely patronizing. Most of my many dissents were taken as "oh, poor naive freshman." That is at least how I felt. Sadly, even I, an outspoken critic in my classes, am often intimidated knowing that the professor, the TA's, and many, if not most of the students disagree with me. The new academic freedom policy for the University of California (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf) states "The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless students and faculty are free within the classroom to express the widest range of viewpoints in accord with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics." This is a joke. Only the most radical views are expressed in class. Maybe the "widest range of (liberal) viewpoints." [In June 1999 (more than 3 years *before* this poster's experience), UCSD's Committee on Educational Policy recommended that DOC "add greater range of viewpoints in course readings and in discussion sections." Information obtained using The California Public Records Act.] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Jul. 4, 2003 http://www.ucsd.edu CA Course: MMW 5: Making of the Modern World: Revolution, Industry and Empire Course Catalog Description: Consideration of the great changes in European society from the late eighteenth century to the Russian revolution, and their impact on the non-Western world. Topics include industrialization, the rise of nationalism and the nation-state, Western imperialism, and the colonial experience. Developments in nonWestern countries, during this period will be examined from their own internal perspectives. Three hours of lecture, one hour of discussion. (This course is required for all students in the Eleanor Roosevelt College, one of six Colleges that make up UCSD.) Professor: William A. O'Brien Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: Used the class as a forum for his anti-capitalist, pro-Marxist, and anti-American beliefs; didn't provide balance; mocked American values and those who influenced the founding of the U.S. "Both of our political parties are extreme right-wing, very close to the Nazis"; essentially blamed Western imperialism for 9-11 attacks, and trivialized the attacks. I wrote down most of his "off the wall" comments because I found them almost unbelievable, e.g - he mocked the term Ground Zero, saying "Just a few buildings that came down", or "The death toll on 9-11 was grossly exaggerated". Just appalling. He chose to use the class period to go off-topic and make disparaging remarks about contemporary American society, the evils of our "imperialism", and Western "facism". He barely touched on the period the course was supposed to encompass. Discussion Bias: Objectionable Comments: Prof led discussions but TA's seemed of similar mind. To his credit he invited questions and alternative views, including mine, but occasionally with a mocking or sneering response that I'm sure intimidated those students who might have felt as I did but were taking the course for credit. Conversely, he encouraged those students whose comments mirrored his. Open debate was O.K. in principle but, as you might expect, those rare brave souls who had the courage to offer alternative views were often greeted by the students with sarcasm and even hostility. Examples- when I remarked that Islamists might look at their own theocratic culture and corrupt leaders, instead of blaming the Western world for its troubles, it was suggested I was racist. Likewise, when I suggested that Western democracy grew out of the Christian (Protestant) Reformation, it was suggested that I had no respect for others. Often, the TA's, who grade exams and papers, would join in with Prof. O'Brien, and echo his views. What's a savvy student who needs good grades to get into law school, grad school, etc. to do other than to "play the game" ? Readings Bias: N/A Comments: I audited this course (as a University Extension student) so I didn't go through many of the readings, but I suspect they were largely o.k. General Comments: The course could have been a good one, covering the European impact on the non-Western world. but clearly he was trying to indoctrinate the students to his political philosophy. He said at the outset that he wouldn't be "focusing on facts and history" but wanted to encourage critical thinking. With few exceptions he didn't focus on facts and history. His aim of encouraging critical thinking could not be accomplished when he only presented one side of the issue. The University of California's Academic Freedom document (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-010.pdf) states that courses should not be used as a "platform for propaganda" and the UC Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf) states that it is unacceptable for faculty to have "significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course." I believe that where this Prof violated the guidelines was that he used the course as a "platform for propaganda", and that much of his lecture time was devoted to damning American and Western culture/government, quite unrelated to the course description. I believe he used "academic freedom" as his opportunity to indoctrinate his students, and as we all know, undergraduate students are at a very impressionable age. When I complained about him to the Chairman of the MMW program, I was told, "His students love him. He's one of our most popular faculty members". Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Oct. 26, 2002 http://www.ucsd.edu CA Course: WCWP 10B: Warren College Writing Course Course Catalog Description: A workshop course in reading and writing required of all Warren College students. The course emphasizes argumentation and critical writing based on sources. Professor: Linda Brodkey (director) Required? Yes, for all students Lecture Bias: N/A Comments: This was a workshop course taught by a graduate student TA. The director of the program was not present at any of the workshop discussions. Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: For WCWP 10B, different sections have different topics. The topic of the section to which I was assigned was science. Over the course of the quarter, it became more and more apparent that the TA wanted to impart upon us her sociological view of science (she happened to be a sociologist). Her view (seemingly the same as the authors of our readings) was that science isn't as perfect as scientists apparently claim (because scientists argue amongst each other about theories), and that it is horrible when scientists dismiss the experiments of others when those experiments cannot be repeated. The first assignment of the class was to write a page on our opinion of science. Then at the end we had to do the same assignment, to see if our opinion on the matter had changed. Most of the students started the class with fairly indifferent opinions, and finished feeling that they should be wary whenever they hear scientists make claims, etc. I, on the other hand, felt the same way at both start and finish: Science is a never-ending loop of hypotheses and experimentation and that peer review and replication are crucial to overcoming human bias in experimentation. At the end of the class I wrote that I disagreed with the social constructivism view presented to us. The TA seemed very concerned about my views and even read my final essay (view on science) to the class. She questioned me on my beliefs and asked me how I could feel the way I did after reading what we had read and discussing what we had discussed. Thankfully she was not antagonistic, but it was still an uncomfortable position. The class seemed more like a re-education program than a university writing course. ["The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind...": from UC's Academic Freedom Statement (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf); "Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student..." is "unacceptable facutly conduct": from UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf)] Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: No textbooks were assigned for the course, but there was a required reader. This contained the complete text (minus a couple of chapters) of the book "The Golem - What you should know about science" by H. Collins and T. Pinch. The entire book presents a controversial and one-sided sociological view of science. Most of the text is biased. In my opinion, the authors try to make the case that scientists should not be given the authority that they have because the scientific community at large dismisses experiments that cannot be replicated. These required readings did not exhibit any measure of balance whatsoever. Aside from this reader, the only other reading assignment was that we had to go to a library and find a book review challenging the book. This was to facilitate one of our assignments in which we analyzed how the authors responded to negative reviews in their afterword. The readings merely served to fit the TAs opinion of science, which didn't allow for any alternative viewpoints. [NoIndoctrination.org has a copy of this course reader.] [In 1998 (3 years *before* this poster's experience) a report by a UCSD faculty committee reviewing the Warren College Writing Program stated: "...if controversial issues are examined, multiple and contrasting points of view should be presented." Report obtained using the California Public Records Act.] General Comments: It's amazing that this course is listed as a writing course. It seemed more like a quarter-long discussion about the social construction of science. Writing seemed secondary, merely used to fill up some sessions with writing workshops where we critiqued each other's essays. It was astonishing to me the number of people who could not write one complete and comprehensible sentence. Unfortunately, this "writing" course didn't seem to help them. Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Sep. 23, 2002 http://www.ucsd.edu CA Course: WCWP 10A: Warren College Writing Course Course Catalog Description: A workshop course in reading and writing required of all Warren College students. The course emphasizes argumentation and critical writing based on sources. Professor: Linda Brodkey Required? Yes, for all students Lecture Bias: N/A Comments: While there were no lectures (only discussions/workshops) the writing director, Professor Brodkey, did at times sit in on discussions. When she did, the class always took on more of an indoctrinating air than usual. Brodkey would sometimes point out things in our readings in a way which not only made clear her own views, but expected us to feel the same (she was quite intimidating). Furthermore, on these occasions the TA seemed more dedicated than usual to making the course an indoctrination session. Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: Although we did discuss both sides of the reading materials on controversial subjects, most of the time the TA seemed to make it quite clear what her view was. Many times she also did not hide her belief that we should hold the same views. There were only 15 people in the class, so intimidation was often easy to achieve. On one occasion, she polled us on our views on the use of racial preferences and quotas for university admissions. Those who opposed (myself and another) were then asked pointed and intimidating questions about our own stance. This was after the TA told us her own views. Then we had a "discussion" where she basically had the other students tell us why our ideas were wrong. At the end of the course, she showed us a video (not on the syllabus) on racism and after that we had another "discussion" where she made sweeping generalizations about racists (who are apparently always white) and their pervasion of all aspects of society. ["The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind...": from UC's Academic Freedom Statement (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf); "Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student..." is "unacceptable facutly conduct": from UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf)] Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: The reader for the course consisted of 5 essays. The first was an essay which practically accused all whites as being racist. The next two essays were responses which essentially agreed with the first essay and added further arguments. The fourth was, however, a response (incidentally written by an African-American) challenging the original author in a civil and academic fashion. The fifth and final essay was a response by the original author to the author of the unfavorable response. It was essentially a personal attack that basically accused the man of being a traitor to his race. One of the essays also indicated that Asians are "proto-whites" (used as a degrading term) because they apparently do not experience racism from whites in the same way that other races do. [NoIndoctrination.org has a copy of the course reader. The five essays were "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness" by George Lipsitz, "Reading Reginald Denny: The Politics of Whiteness in the Late Twentieth Century" by George J. Sanchez, "The Hidden Face of Racism" by Henry Louis Taylor, Jr., "A Tragic Vision of Black Problems" by Walter E. Williams, and "Toxic Racism" by George Lipsitz.] General Comments: This course is required of all students in Warren College at UCSD. It is intended to be a course on writing, but the only time the TA taught us anything about writing was when many of the students complained that they wanted to learn how to write better. [NoIndoctrination.org Note: UCSD knew problems existed in this program years before this student's experience. A 1998 report by a UCSD faculty committee reviewing the Warren College Writing Program stated: "...if controversial issues are examined, multiple and contrasting points of view should be presented." A 1999 memo from UCSD's Committee on Educational Policy recommended that "The Program shall work hard to ensure that students' rights be respected and that the practice of penalizing students for their political views shall not be tolerated." The 1998 UCSD faculty review committee report also expressed the following concerns: · "The frequency of student complaints regarding the 'politically correct' biases in the readings, often worsened by perceived biases in TA evaluations of student papers, is the understandable outcome. · "Students in the focus group also noted that as lower division students, they lacked the background to counter the views articulated in readings, and apparently there was little encouragement for them to explore alternative sources." · "On the face of it, and in the light of students' comments, the committee worries that a pedagogical fallacy exists in this approach. In the absence of an intellectual context, in the absence of instructors sophisticated in socialscience arcana such as 'social construction theory,' and in the absence of encouragement and rhetorical tools in articulating possible critical reaction, lower-division students are bound to perceive the readings as agents of political indoctrination. This perception is quite sufficient to repel students, who, for the sake of expediency, may be willing to jump through the necessary hoops, but who do not treat the course or its subject matter as intellectually serious. While remaining agnostic as to the merits of the program's reading selections and the validity of student perceptions, the committee concludes that the approach generally fails in its purported aim, which is to open young minds to other ways of interpreting social reality and, in the process, motivating them to become better writers." · [The committee] concurs with emphasizing the importance of selecting materials with an eye to their contribution to developing student writing skills—including skills in writing that is not a 'form of social and political action.'" The above information was obtained using The California Public Records Act.] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Jul. 23, 2004 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Soc 185C: Cultural Theory Course Catalog Description: "An introduction to functionalist, semiotic, dramaturgical, Weberian, Durkheimian, Marxian and post-structuralist approaches to cultural analysis." Professor: Roger Friedland Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: When signing up for this specific course on cultural theory, as a serious student I was eager to learn about the numerous approaches to cultural analysis, as was outlined in the UCSB General Catalog (see above). Although brief, I personally found little ambiguity in what the said description detailed. Thus, as a financially independent, working-class student, I expected to receive the class I paid for, yet what I received instead bore little resemblance to what I and others believed was clearly advertised. On the first day of class, the professor introduced himself at the start of lecture and provided students with background information concerning his personal scholarly interests which when described reflected issues solely pertaining to religious issues. He went on to describe himself as a "neo-Marxist," and stated (boastfully?) that one of his own books occupied a position on President Clinton's White House desk during his presidency. As a student, however, I wondered - if true - why this type of scholarly self-promotion was even necessary; was it merely a transparent attempt in name-dropping before what he imagined were many highly impressionable young people? While I personally attempted to suspend all judgment, in time it became increasingly evident to me that this was the case. Shortly after his introduction, the course syllabus was handed out. Immediately, I was startled to find little resemblance to the class I specifically signed up for. Oddly, even the course title had been altered, and was now "Sociology 185C: Cultural Theory: The Case of Religious Nationalism." When I reviewed the assigned readings and lectures, I wondered whether I was in the wrong class for a moment, for virtually everything in it pertained to issues of religion (for more on this and a complete overview of the entire couse, please see the course website at: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/ndryden/Soc185CSyllabus.html *). Still, as a student, I (naively?) held out hope that the professor might still find a way to somehow incorporate the theories as described in the university catalog, though after four weeks of classes rolled by, it was clear he would not. Confused by this, I finally went to a professor whose opinion I trusted in the sociology department, to try to obtain some sense in what was happening. His/her response was thus: "He's been doing this for years…(evidently) he only wants to teach on what he's writing his current book about." When I asked what s/he thought I should do, the reply was direct "Speak to the Department Chair about it." Despite hearing this, I decided to stay in the class a bit longer, as finally, the section on Durkheim (the only consistency with the class syllabus) was about to be covered. However, shortly thereafter, Prof. Friedland announced to the class that they did not have to do the Durkheim readings, as he decided not to cover any of it on the approaching mid-term. Highly disappointed, I decided never to return to the class, as it was increasingly clear that the professor was being intellectually dishonest with his students, and I cannot and do not respect this. Shortly thereafter, I and another student from the class met with the Chair of Sociology Dr Noah Friedkin to discuss the matter, and essentially, register a complaint (for more on this, see my next posting [# 415]). Privately, the Chair agreed what was taught was wholly inconsistent with what the course was designed and described to be, and to his credit was indeed apologetic. However, as I stated to Dr Friedkin, a private apology alone was not sufficient, as it would not refund the cost of taking the class or remedy any of my time or energy wasted on a religious studies class I had never signed up for. As an "interesting aside," this same Professor (Friedland) is currently teaching a Religious Studies course (Rel. Studies 118A) this summer [Summer 2004] entitled "Religious Nationalism." I also found out that the primary book used for my class "Terror in the Mind of God" is also mandatory reading in his RS course - not too surprising! I strongly suspect there is little substantive difference between this course and the one I unfortunately enrolled in "Soc 185C: Cultural Theory". [* Note from NoIndoctrination.org: This detailed online syllabus for Prof. Friedland's SOC 185C course has the following introduction: "Secularization was supposed to lead to the progressive distancing of the state from religion. This course will introduce the topic of religious nationalism, the fusion of two symbolic orders, of divinity and temporal power, which was not supposed to occur in late modernity. We will examine both the persistence and rise of religious nationalism, its nature as a particular form of institutional politics, the way in which divinity is and has been understood in relation to money, and the tendencies of this form of politics to be associated with violence."] Discussion Bias: Excessive Comments: The course bias itself was twofold: not adhering to the advertised course description, and the way in which the professor presented the material. Both the lecture and discussion bias was clear from the start, as Friedland was the typical self-identified neo-Marxist secularist, preaching about the dangers of organized religion, and by repeated comparison, essentially lumping Christian fundamentalists in the USA with Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East. Seemingly, few students in the class had any genuine frame of reference for what he was discussing and unfortunately, mostly took it all in rather unquestioningly. Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: Not surprisingly, the readings assigned merely backed up the professor’s own conclusions, so much for intellectual "diversity." There were two texts (Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, and Sudhir Kakar, The Colors of Violence: Cultural Identities, Religion and Conflict) and a class reader containing articles which the professor and his colleagues had written, predominately on religious violence and terror. Is this what cultural analysis is limited to? General Comments: In my view, it takes a high degree of both elitism and arrogance to personally feel that one is above the rules and regulations of the university as an institution (UC Faculty Code of Conduct http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf : "Unacceptable faculty conduct" includes "significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course"). But since there is virtually no oversight regarding such misuse of students’ academic pursuits and money, and even less penalization, this type of academic abuse will unfortunately only continue because rules and regulations are only adhered to on a voluntary basis. Certainly "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and will continue to until parents, students and taxpayers who fund such public institutions finally say "enough is enough." However in the short run, students such as myself will continue to be robbed both monetarily (was told by the administration that there is no re-imbursement to the student in such cases) and educationally. This is indeed a pity. In sum, Dr Friedland betrayed the trust of taxpayers, students, parents, his own institution and profession. Someone of his obvious privilege and status should feel deeply ashamed of his own (continuing) deception and abuse of his position of power. Rebuttal Submitted: Jul. 23, 2004 I hesitate to respond to this critique because I do not share the premise of the web site. That students should not be "indoctrinated" assumes that there somehow exists a non-political position from which one conducts research in the human sciences. I don't subscribe to that notion. That may work for neutrinos, but not for nuclear families. Given that the web site aims to locate professors who are "charged" with trumpeting left-wing biases, the assumption must be that those who favor theories upon which the right grounds their politics do not indoctrinate their students. That is dishonest. It also contributes to the politicization of knowledge production, something which we know well from Iran, the Soviet Union, China and Nazi Germany. To have political movements breathing down professors' necks is not a pleasant image. I believe that the most important question is what theories, what assumptions about how the world works, undergird different kinds of politics, not what kinds of politics animate different theories. Those are the legitimate contests in the academy. President Bush has a theory of the world when he invades Iraq. Is it right? What are its assumptions? Some theories are right and some are wrong, and under certain conditions. Usually they are more or less right and under more or less restrictive conditions. However, I must acknowledge that the struggles over those theories are just as fierce, and often just as freighted with ontological and normative assumptions which cannot be adjudicated by reference to the evidence of the senses, as those that animate the conflicts between Bush and Kerry, for example. That there is a liberal bias in the academy goes without saying. The retreat from foundationalism in philosophy and from logical-positivism in the social sciences has also opened the epistemic space for politicization. Where the politics of knowledge are going is an important issue. The history indicates, however, that we should be careful indeed. Read Max Weber, who had his own issues with the Marxists on his campus, on the issue. Nonetheless, I think students being able to hold professors accountable is a good thing. I remember this student and indeed had email communication with him. He was knowledgeable, had done some of his own research on topics about which I was interested. I looked forward to hearing what he had to say in my class. I was disappointed when one day he got up and never returned. He never told me that the class was not what was advertised; he never complained. I recall that I even emailed him afterwards expressing my regret that he dropped the class, giving him an opening to explain. He did not. (Indeed I was never approached by my chair or any other colleague that my teaching was inadequate. The evaluations I received for the course, by the way, from these gullible students was one that indicated appreciation for the course, not disappointment.) Indeed I do use what I am doing research and writing on in my teaching. That is what is done in a research university like UCSB. And my experience at UCSB is that teaching theory in the abstract is not particularly interesting to most students. And I am a scholar who is committed to interdisciplinary work, moving between the humanities and the social sciences. I use a lot of non-social science sources. In this case I lectured on the course of religious nationalism as a case through which one could look at a number of different theories. I went back and looked at my midterm and finals to see what I expected students to know about in the course this student took. The questions on the exam concerned the theories of Vivianne Zelizer, Sherry Ortner, Martin Riesbrodt, Claude Levi-Strauss, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber and Karl Marx. Indeed there is not a question on Durkheim, although I did lecture on him. I also touched on Michel Foucault and Judith Butler. This is not in any way a shoddy list in terms of the advertisement. Indeed it matches up rather nicely. The issue is pedagogy, not coverage. Finally, the question of neo-Marxism. Indeed I identified myself as somebody who came out of a neo-Marxist intellectual background. Thirty years ago I wrote an essay with others attempting to develop a better Marxist theory of the state. I also did empirical work on the welfare state and economic growth, work that has been regularly cited by the Heritage Foundation, not exactly my cup of tea politically. (I would like to point out that a number of the most noted neo-conservatives-which I am not-used to be Trotskyists.) I happen to think that the Marxist question of class is something which, in fact, is sadly absent in much of the academic world and needs to return. In this context though, the significance of my self-identification is not a declaration of political colors, but as a background against which to critique neo-Marxist theories of politicized religion for their failure to understand the phenomenon, or religion in general. A strictly materialist or class-based theory just won't work. Of course, the freedom-loving developmentalists who dominate the Bush administration don't understand it either. But that is a much more complex debate which indicates the limits of neo-classical economics as much as neo-Marxism. It is a pity that the student who dropped out, complained to my colleagues and my chair, and now to the world, didn't stay and have it with me. Maybe we could both have learned something. As to my indicating that my co-authored book, with Richard Hecht, on Jerusalem-To Rule Jerusalem--being read by President Clinton, I plead guilty. Where pride and where narcissism blend in to each other, I am not sure. That that study dealt with the phenomenon at hand and that I was seeking to establish my credentials also had something to do with my mentioning it. See also wider point under university events relating to this course. The opinions expressed within NoIndoctrination.org are not necessarily those held by NoIndoctrination.org http://www.noindoctrination.org/copyright.shtml University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) May. 13, 2004 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: HIST 17C: The American People Course Catalog Description: HIST 17 A-B-C. A survey of the leading issues in American life from colonial times to the present. The course focuses on politics, cultural development, social conflict, economic life, foreign policy, and influential ideas. Features discussion sections. C. World War I to the present. Professor: Nelson Lichtenstein Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: As a student, I found Professor Lichtenstein to be the typical anti-capitalist, far-left revisionist instructor, one who attempts to focus almost completely upon the faults and injustices of the United States. As an independent-minded student registered in the Green Party, I am far from "right-wing" or "conservative," however, this does not negate the fact that I am paying thousands of dollars for a balanced, scholarly education, not doctrinaire ideological programming. Lectures were far from balanced as they only provided one narrow ideological perspective. Even in moments of heroism and historical achievement for our nation, the professor invariably found ways to slight or trivialize any positive attributes. Case in point, when covering the Second World War, the professor inaccurately put forth the premise that "the Soviet Union won the war" period, essentially minimizing any direct effect the other allies had in the defeat of the axis powers. To me, this interpretation was clearly an attempt to propagandize this crucial moment in world history as a crowning moment for the Soviet's only. I later brought this issue to the attention of the T/A, who seemed to share the professor's opinion concerning this issue. I then asked the T/A, "What's the professor's political ideology?" The T/A promptly stated, "As far left as you can get." I only state this because his personal bias was already highly evident to me by how the instructor taught the class, thus it was hardly surprising. Be that as it may, if the instructor was still able to separate his own views from that of his teachings, in my view, this alone would not be a problem. Discussion Bias: Noticeable Comments: The T/A clearly agreed with the ideological direction of the professor, but all in all did a decent job. Readings Bias: Objectionable Comments: The textbook ("Reading the American Past," Vol 2 by Johnson) utilized for the course had a heavy emphasis on identity politics (ie, making sure every ethnic minority was represented, as well as women, gays, etc), often overemphasizing certain "groups" achievements in typically politically-correct fashion. The other required books were as follows: "Who Built America: Working People and the Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society" by Lichtenstein; "If He Hollers Let Him Go" by Himes; "Rumor of War" by Caputo; and "Molly's Job" by Adler. Without exception, all the books assigned were essentially written from a pro-labor, anti-corporate, anti-war, liberal to radical perspective. One only needs to view the cover of Lichtenstein's own book "Who Built America" for an adequate idea about what lies inside its pages. General Comments: Although I received an "A" in this class, it was not because I learned anything of substance but instead, because I provided the specific politically-correct responses in all my papers and exams and followed the rules of the academic "game." In other words, given how the course was skewed so far to the left, intellectual honesty was hardly something worth risking if one cared about their grades (as I do). The University of California's new Academic Freedom Policy (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf) states that "The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind...," yet how is this possible when a professor slants his lectures and readings in such a way?? Such statements are meaningless if they are not adequately enforced in any genuine way. Too frequently (as in this class), student academic freedom exists in theory only. [NoIndoctrination.org Note: The American Historical Associations' Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct (http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/professionalstandards.cfm), under "Teaching" states, "Integrity in teaching means presenting competing interpretations with fairness and intellectual honesty"; "Students should be made aware of multiple causes and varying interpretations."] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Nov. 21, 2003 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Psych 7: Introduction to Experimental Psychology Course Catalog Description: Introduction to the purpose, design, planning, and execution of experiments in psychology and to the analysis and interpretation of data. Professor: David Sherman Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Noticeable Comments: This is a class about experiments in the field of psychology. It has NOTHING to do with American politics, yet I find it interesting that our teacher constantly uses President Bush for his examples, and need I say they are never flattering. He pokes fun at Bush during each of these examples in a sarcastic way to make the whole class laugh. Once when he was teaching us about survey design, he used an example of: "Who do you prefer Jefferson or Bush?" He went on the pick Jefferson and showed about 7 unflattering pictures of President Bush and waited for laughs from the class. Another time he was discussing variability in the population and then showed a quote from President Bush with grammatical errors in it and read it to the class. He said: "This is not a typo by the way, he actually said this" and then laughed along with the class. Prof. Sherman has used President Bush as his examples in about 5 lectures which is a lot in a quarter system when the class only meets twice a week. He has mentioned other political issues such as the arab-israeli conflict and the claim of liberal media bias or complaints that fox news is a Republican channel, but he only touched on them lightly. In my opinion being indoctrinated in a psychology class, of all things, is no laughing matter. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: no discussions for this class Readings Bias: N/A Comments: The bias is in his lectures, not in the reading. General Comments: I would just like to add that it upsets me that he thinks making fun of one political party (and not all parties) is acceptable and that we (the students) all automatically agree with him. Why does he assume everyone will agree with him and find this funny? It upsets me that he didn't even give it a second thought that he might be offending anyone, or making any students feel uncomfortable. I think this is a very subliminal form of indoctrination because he is cleverly slipping in mockeries of President Bush, when he should be sticking to psychology. [UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf) states that "Significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course" is "Unacceptable faculty conduct".] University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Nov. 27, 2002 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Soc 108F: Studying People At First Hand Course Catalog Description: A vital aspect of modern sociology is the study of social activities in natural settings. This course explores the different methods a fieldworker can use to discover truths about society. Professor: Kumkum Bhavnani Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: Sociology 108f is billed as a methods class in which students are taught methods of research in dealing with people. Among the different methods are interviews, survey etc... It seemed unlikely to me that there could be any bias in the instruction of methods of research. I was surprised to find out that there in fact is a way for such a thing to be manifested. On the first day of class professor Bhavnani explained that the primary focus of the class would be on ethnography. She then went on to explain that throughout the course she would use past research and ethnography to convey methods of research. I was not put off by this at all; however, that soon changed. The first piece of research she presented was in the form of a video called "Women of the Hezbolah". The video depicted the plight of Palestinian revolutionaries who were fighting for a free Palestine. In the video several women explained why they were fighting and what terrible subjugation they have experienced at the hand of Israel. In one scene they showed two individuals visiting their childhood home which had been decimated. The general concept of the video was to convey that something terrible had been done to Palestinians and that the hesbolah was going to make it right at any cost. Later in the video young children were shown marching with automatic weapons in a rally with hezbolah revolutionaries. In my opinion these people were terrorists and I was appalled that they would enlist their young children to fight, but I could understand that the video was attempting to offer a new perspective on a familliar subject or as Professor Bhavnani put it: Making the familliar unfamilliar by providing new insight. So it was clear to me that this video was presented from an extreme left perspective, but I accepted it expecting to see many other presentations from different perspectives. The next video she showed was called "Maria's Story," in which a group of communisit-like rebels in El Salvador were fighting their oppresive United States backed government. This video followed one particular guerrilla fighter named Maria who enlisted children to fight with her. When one of the children was shot, she was recorded screaming about what type of monster would shoot a child. I suppose the point of showing children fighting was to ensight support for a cause that was so in jeopardy that they need children in order to progress their cause. Once again I saw another piece of extreme left propaganda but I still hoped for something balancing. The next segment Bhavnani discussed with the class was her own research study of women in prison, in which she interviews prisoners in America and abroad and shows how unfair the prison system is to their needs that a mother could not be with their child. It was clear to me that the mother should have thought of that before committing crimes but that type of view was never presented or discussed. Throughout the course the same type of left oriented material was presented one after another. Although Professor Bhavnani asserted that the material was presented for the purpose of showing different methods of studying people, it became clear to me that the course title "Studying People at First Hand" was an excuse to present objectionally biased material. In my oppinion the course should have been called Studying People from a Leftist Perpective. This of course would not work however, because at no time did Professor Bhavnani admit that she was in fact pushing a leftist agenda disguised as instruction on methodology. Upon completing the class I could not help but feel that I had not really learned much about studying people from the professor herself. She gave us assignments to go observe people or to interview people in which I had to teach myself how to best complete such tasks, but her instruction on the subject was minimal at best. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: Although there was no discussion section for the class, there were two Teaching Assistants of whom I had virtually no contact with, with the exception of one day in which one of the teaching assistants presented her research on the flower picking industry of South America. In the presentation she explained how capitalist enterprises were subjugating laborers in South America, etc... Readings Bias: Objectionable Comments: The readings were supplements to the presented material and contained the same bias that the lectures had. General Comments: I believe that in a methods course there is no reason to present such controversial material, particularly when it is presented with no rebuttal. I believe that we could have learned the same information about studying people looking at a video of a family gathering or some other such benign event. Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Oct. 17, 2002 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Political Science 7: Introduction to International Relations Course Catalog Description: An introduction to the basic concepts, theories, and problems of international relations; balance of power, deterrence, the states system, imperialism, realism, idealism, levels of explanation, war and peace. Professor: Aaron Belkin Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: Part of the course was based on national identities and how it affects international relations. What was focused on, however, were negative portrayals of American and Western identity. One day we watched a video on how large national defense spending was apart of American identity, but the video was completely anti-military and antiAmerican. One speaker in it said that defense contractors putting out advertisements for increased funding to make better equipment for our servicemen was comparable to a murderous kidnapper sending a fingernail clipping of his adbuctee to his or her family and saying if you don't give me money I'll kill them. In the video it also said that commercials promoting the military were inappropriate because they were taking pride in killing. The professor spent a good deal of time speaking on American support for a military government in El Salvador and how this resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He also spent time speaking about the killing of innocent people by American troops in Vietnam. Little or no time was spent on the atrocities or unfortunate occurrences in regards to other countries. Discussion Bias: Noticeable Comments: The discussions were okay except for briefly discussing some of the biased readings. Readings Bias: Objectionable Comments: One reading assignment was entitled "Western State Terrorism". This said that the western world creates a certain idea of what terrorism is and feeds it to the public. The western world then downplays its own forceful actions, which the author implied were terroristic. The reading also contained pieces on an American massacre of innocent people in Vietnam and American involvement in the civil war of El Salvador. Little or none of the reading negatively portrayed any other countries or people as badly as the U.S. and the western world. General Comments: N/A Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Oct. 7, 2002 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Black Studies 38B: Introduction to Afro-American Literature (Part II) Course Catalog Description: Afro-American literature from the 1930s to the present. Professor: Jane Duran Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: This professor bodly stated to the class that she was a Marxist and that she disagreed with any conservative or right-wing view. She openly expressed appreciation for students who agreed with her liberal standpoint. She would say such things like, "You get an A today," when someone would mention oppression, discrimination, prejudice, or exploitation. When I spoke in class quite the opposite would take place. She rolled her eyes at me, brushed me off, and would not listen to my arguments. For example, one day we were discussing Tiger Woods. The professor felt that he should not deny his African-American heritage and that he should proudly refer to himself as black. Students were raising their hands and saying that maybe he should be characterized as AsianAmerican and African-American. Others said that he should be in a different racial category. I raised my hand and said, "I think he wants to be called Tiger." The professor let out a groan and exclaimed, "That's a cop-out." I was outraged at the way she ignored my statement. Even if she disagreed with my view, she could have at least taken what I had said into consideration. She could have let me speak without degrading me or making her own views known. From that point on, I always felt that in her eyes I was an enemy, not a young student who had come there to learn and discuss and debate. She did not want to hear what I had to say if I did not agree with her. She was not open, she only wanted to silence the other side to the story. It seemed ridiculous because here she was teaching freedom and equality, yet she was discriminating agianst me based on my political views. Discussion Bias: Noticeable Comments: The TA further progressed the professor's ideas of racism and oppression, but he was more tolerant of discussion and debate than she was. It is also less difficult to express one's views when addressing a small group of people as oppossed to a large room of similar-minded students. I did also have a friend in my discussion who shared my more conservative political views, so it helped to have him there too. Readings Bias: Noticeable Comments: Most of the readings could be interpreted in many ways, just like most literature. The professor, of course, chose to interpret the readings as accounts of discrimination and prejudice based on race. I interpreted them differently, but my views were not accepted. I felt that the characters in these novels chose their own paths and put themselves in their own bleak situations. For instance, in "Daddy was a Number Runner" by Louise Meriwether, a young black boy gets enrolled into a private, highly academic school. He is given the chance to learn, educate himself, and succeed. However, he feels that he cannot stand the hardship of sticking out in a school filled with white boys, so he decides to drop out. My professor felt that he was subject to oppression. I, however, felt that he made his own choice by dropping out. His position in the school may have been very difficult, but no one forced him to leave his studies. These were things that I was not permitted to say in class because they went against what was being taught and force-fed to the students. There was no room for discussion or debate. In my opinion, no other views were tolerated except for those which alligned with the professor's extremist beliefs. General Comments: [NoIndoctrination.org Note: According to the University of California's Academic Freedom Policy (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf), " "The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless students and faculty are free within the classroom to express the widest range of viewpoints in accord with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics." According to UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf), "The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom."] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Oct. 7, 2002 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Soc 1: Introduction to Sociology Course Catalog Description: Basic Concepts and issues in the study of human society. The structures and processes of human conduct, social organization, and social change. Professor: Margaret George-Cramer Required? Yes, for my major or minor Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: When I signed up for this class, I was under the impression that I would be learning the basics of sociology as the course description indicated. I quickly got the impression that I would not be learning such a thing at all. The entire course seemed more like an introduction to victimology to me. The course began with the Marxian and Durkheimian models of social stratification and then progressed into 10 weeks of anti-capitalist, antiglobalization rhetoric. We were shown several theories on globalization that portrayed Western civilization as almost demonic, heartless, and ruthless beasts that enslave the world for financial gain. When I asked whether there were other models of globalism that did not progress such ideas, the professor threw an angry glare my way and said there are no other models. She then added that even if there were, it would be unconscionable to mention them when there was so much oppression and exploitation going on. On another occasion, Professor GeorgeCramer presented slides on the recent protests in Seattle during the meeting of the World Trade Organization. She showed images of police in riot gear pushing back a group of protesters. She turned to the class and asked something like; "does this look like a democracy to you?" As if to imply that the police were trying to silence protesters. In another slide, she displayed a Starbucks with broken windows that had been vandalized by the protesters. She quickly stated that there were a few occasions such as this one and then brushed it off as a minor incidence. Although the protesters had clearly violated their right to march and picket non-violently by destroying local businesses, she still presented it as though the police were acting wrongfully in their effort to maintain order and that the protesters freedom of speech was being silenced. In no less than three different lectures, the professor showed video's on sweatshop exploitation, but never showed any videos on organizations that make it a point to maintain high standards of working conditions for their employees. I also felt that throughout the course, the professor took extra effort to push Marx's ideas on the class while brushing aside other ideas including the ones presented in the text. She spent no time discussing the Symbolic Interactionist view or Social Darwinism or any other important sociological framework for that matter. In every case in which I attempted to politely disagree with her point, I was met with a smug remark and on one occasion was later ridiculed for asking any such question as the one I posed. Although I do not recall what that particular question was about I feel that I was respectful and polite in the way in which I phrased it. Finally, one of the questions on the multiple choice final for the class asked: "What system is based on the division and exploitation of classes?" The answer to the question was capitalism, and in order to receive a good grade on the test I was forced to select that answer although I did not agree. What angered me the most about this experience was that at no time during this "Introduction to Sociology" class did I learn anything about group interactions, interpersonal interactions, or social constructions of society beyond those that progressed Marxist ideas and anti-capitalist notions. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: The T.A. for the course only showed up three times out of the ten times the section met and of those three times two of them were reviews for the midterm and final. Although I attempted to talk to him about the bias I felt was being presented in lecture, he quickly responded that he did not feel that she was teaching in a biased way and said she was less biased than most teachers in the department. Readings Bias: Noticeable Comments: Although the reading presented several views and ideas, it still clearly pushed more the left oriented ones than the others. General Comments: N/A Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Oct. 7, 2002 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: Black Studies 50: Blacks in the Media Course Catalog Description: The development of Black stereotypes. Studying literature, comic books, comic strips, cartoons, music, theater, cinema, broadcasting, and television, students will analyze the mythical imageries which have created stereotypes. Professor: Otis Madison Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Excessive Comments: I found that according to this professor, capitalism is a system based on racism. In my opinion, it seemed that at the root of everything was oppression and abuse of power by "clowns," "fools," and "idiots." He used such words to describe Congress and the President of United States. Hilary Clinton, however, was praised as a genious. Reagan, of course, was a senile old fool who ruined the country. This professor was very outspoken, dramatic, and over the top. He enjoyed making his points and making them strongly. However, I believe that his claims were not backed up by any facts or data. He was really just voicing his own opinion and presenting it as truth. This was the case with any current social or political issues. When it came to the history of depictions of race in the media, however, I did learn a lot from this teacher. Of course, most people would agree that racism was much more prevelant in the past than today. But instead of focusing on the advancements that have been made, emphasis was still placed on the oppression of African-Americans due to the black stereotype. Discussion Bias: Noticeable Comments: Although the TA was open to differing views, many students perpetuated the one-side-only atmosphere. Anytime I made a somewhat conservative or right-wing argument, I was scared of being met with hostility and aggression. Somehow, the liberal side has become the sensitive, compassionate, honorable side. While the conservative standpoint is heartless and somehow racist; so much so that I cannot comfortably express my own opinion at my public University, which is supposed to be a place of tolerance, open-mindedness, and higher education. ["The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless students and faculty are free within the classroom to express the widest range of viewpoints in accord with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics." from the University of California statement on Academic Freedom (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf)] Readings Bias: Noticeable Comments: While the professor often strayed from the course's topic of blacks in the media, the readings did not. Most all the readings focused on the history of the mistrel show, the progression and evolution of the black stereotype, and the different eras of black television. The readings did mention oppression and expolitation, but were not as overt as the professor and his personal views. The readings also cited and referenced history and specific incidents as evidence. General Comments: N/A Rebuttal University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Oct. 7, 2002 http://www.ucsb.edu CA Course: PolSci 176: Black Politics in America Course Catalog Description: A general survey of politial phenomena in the Black community. American political institutions, law, legislation, and administration will be examined in theory and practice to determine their function in relation to Black politics. Professor: Christopher Parker Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. Lecture Bias: Objectionable Comments: I feel that this particular course, focused on Black politics, primarily took the stance of oppression, exploitation, and misfortune. Although the students studied the success of the Civil Rights Movement, which revealed great perseverence and self-sufficiency, most discussions emphasized racism and continued oppression. I also felt that the professor's attitude was harsh and often unappropriate for the classroom. In my opinion, he was rude, overly aggressive, hot tempered, and used a slew of foul words on a regular basis. It seemed as though he was out to prove a point, or toot his horn, but not to open-mindedly teach a group of young, often uninformed students. Most of the classes were facilitated through discussion between the professor and the students, although not much debate took place. Most kids in the class all took a similar standpoint. I, however, often disagreed with the majority, and when I chose to speak, I felt that I was met with hostility from the professor as well as from the other students. It was as if I was scared to speak my mind, just to express my opinion, because I thought I would get pinned as a racist, skin-head nazi or something. It seemed quite ironic to be in a classroom where everyone was preaching rhetoric about freedom from oppression while I was being oppressed. Of course, the students and the professor seemed totally unaware that they were doing this. It would be like trying to explain water to a fish. Discussion Bias: N/A Comments: There were no discussions/sections outside of lecture. Readings Bias: Excessive Comments: If the professor wanted to present material and information in an objective way, he could have assigned a book that discussed the Black Panthers from a liberal/left-wing stance (which he did), as well as a book like "Radical Son" by David Horowitz, which illustrates a conservative/right-wing argument about the Black Panthers (which he did not). In fact, all the readings depicted only one side of the story, the liberal side. General Comments: [NoIndoctrination.org Note: According to the University of California's Academic Freedom Policy (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf), " "The University also seeks to foster in its students a mature independence of mind, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless students and faculty are free within the classroom to express the widest range of viewpoints in accord with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics." According to UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf), "The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom."] Rebuttal When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here.